May 222026
 


Evelyn De Morgan Night and Sleep 1878


Iranian President: Won’t Back Down (ZH)
Ayatollah Orders Highly-Enriched Uranium To Remain In Iran (ZH)
Trump Posts Article Laying Out How To Crush Tehran In Three Moves (ZH)
Elon Musk Wants a Trillion-Dollar Payday, but There’s One Little Catch (Green)
SpaceX Files For Nasdaq IPO Under Symbol SPCX (ZH)
Is This the Beginning of the End for John Fetterman? (Matt Margolis)
The DNC 2024 Autopsy Is Here, and It’s a Disaster (Amy Curtis)
What Really Happened in Virginia’s Redistricting Case (Von Spakovsky)
Vance Urges UK Patriots To Defend Their Culture Against Starmer (MN)
‘Russians Ready For Conversation’ With Europe — Kremlin (TASS)
Europe Seeks To Block Any Talks On Ukraine Settlement — Russian Diplomat (TASS)
Russia Holds Massive Nuclear Drills On Land, Sea And Air (ZH)
Irrelevant Europe (J.B. Shurk)

 


 

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/2057129253444202498?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2057337929589039126?s=20

 


 


Are they imitating themselves, or Trump?

Iranian President: Won’t Back Down (ZH)

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has stated, “We will not bow our heads, our ministers and experts are working day and night, without a single day off.” He added, per state sources: “We are willing to sacrifice as much as possible for the honor and pride of Iran, and we are not afraid of martyrdom.” And just like that… Markets reversed earlier gains as Iran’s President said on state TV that they won’t back down in talks. The momentum then picked up when a “high-level source” told Al-Arabiya that the Pakistani Army Chief will not head to Tehran tonight.


The Pakistani were supposed to head to Iran only when the reach of an agreement was in sight, so this kind of denies the earlier reports of a US and Iran draft agreement. US stock indices erased more than half of earlier gains. We’ve seen the same reaction in oil, FX and bond markets but now they are consolidating. Still, Al Jazeera is reporting that “negotiators are very close to reaching a deal, and are currently working on a draft text. At the same time, another source told Al Jazeera that it is too early to judge whether a serious, final agreement is within reach.”

IRNA has cited a Pakistani official who says the talks are “moving in the right direct” – though it’s anyone’s guess at this point. The prior reported draft did not take up the nuclear issue. Trump continues to press the nuclear issue. US President Donald Trump has again pledged to seize Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium as part of any agreement over Tehran’s nuclear program.

“Look, we’re going to make sure they don’t have a nuclear weapon or we’re going to have to do something very drastic. I believe when it’s put to the people of our country, they will all agree we cannot let Iran get a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters at the White House. Asked whether Iran could retain its enriched uranium, Trump replied: “No, we will get it. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, we’ll probably destroy it after we get it. But we’re not going to let them have it.”

Read more …

Russia’s the best we can do for him. If Trump agrees.

Ayatollah Orders Highly-Enriched Uranium To Remain In Iran (ZH)

,The illusion of a grand diplomatic breakthrough in the Middle East is once again colliding with reality. The White House has been busy trying to paint a picture of a total capitulation by Tehran, which hasn’t been demonstrated given its consistent position defying Washington’s demands on the nuclear issue. According to two senior Iranian officials speaking to Reuters, Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has drawn a hard line in the sand, ordering that Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% remain strictly inside Iranian territory.


Reuters underscores that “Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei’s order could further frustrate U.S. President Donald Trump and complicate talks on ending the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.” “Israeli officials have told Reuters that Trump has assured Israel that Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, needed to make an atomic weapon, will be sent out of Iran and that any peace deal must include a clause on this,” the report continues.The officials noted that within Tehran, there is deep suspicion that the ceasefire is in fact “a tactical deception by the US,” designed to lull Iran into a “false sense of security… before the fighting resumes.”

The fresh directive from from the supreme leader flies directly in the face of the narrative being spun by Washington and Tel Aviv, given Israeli officials maintain that President Trump explicitly promised Israel that Iran’s highly enriched stockpile would be completely removed from the country as part of any negotiated settlement. Trump has also recently proclaimed this publicly, for example in a phone interview with CBS News last month, wherein he confidently proclaimed that Iran “agreed to everything” and would cooperate fully to ship its enriched uranium out of the country.

Extraction of nuclear material would of course rely heavily on the assumption of total Iranian compliance, given Trump has also lately appeared to rule out out a hostile invasion force, stating, “No. No troops.” There seems to be widespread agreement among national security officials at this point that some kind of special forces op to covertly go in and take it would be tantamount to a ‘suicide mission’. According to more of what Trump (prematurely) proclaimed in the prior CBS interview: “Our people, together with the Iranians, are going to work together to go get it. And then we’ll take it to the United States.” The reality is all along the two sides’ positions have been very far apart, and largely unbending:

And on a potential deal: “We’ll be getting it together because by that time, we’ll have an agreement and there’s no need for fighting when there’s an agreement. Nice right? That’s better. We would have done it the other way if we had to” – he sought to explain. At the moment, Iranian officials are reportedly reviewing the latest updated US proposals for peace, having reportedly asked Pakistan for time to assess and study the American points for negotiations.”

Read more …

I don’t quite get it. The date on that is May 1. What gives?

Trump Posts Article Laying Out How To Crush Tehran In Three Moves (ZH)

President Trump on Thursday posted to Truth Social a New York Post article which was first published over two weeks ago, on May 1st, with the headline “Here’s how to crush Tehran in three moves.” Trump’s new social media post, issued without additional comment, comes just after news of Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei having drawn a hard line in the sand, ordering that Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% remain strictly inside Iranian territory. So now the world awaits what’s next at a moment the White House has renewed threats of massive military strikes if Iran doesn’t quickly come to the table and conform.

The NY Post article had straight-faced and without a hint of intended irony proclaimed: “President Trump has the upper hand.” That statement was issued on day 63 of Trump’s Iran war. Today is day 83. What did the interim look like as the world’s most powerful military force has been unable to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, amid constant threats to take new, bigger military action – but which never actually materializes (at least not yet) no matter how many times the Iranians reject Washington’s terms?

The below timeline and outline, stretching from last week into this one, basically illustrates the weekly Trump pattern that’s been on display going back many weeks at this point:

Wed: Iran wants a deal. They called us
Thu: We are looking at proposals
Fri: We might be close. Very close
Sat: Iran knows what to do
Sun: OBLITERATION. TOTAL. COMPLETE. They have 24 hrs.
Mon: The storm is coming
Tue: I’m giving it more time

This is what ‘winning’ looks like according to the NY Post, apparently. The publication also feels itself in a position to give ‘advice’ and guidance to the White House on executing a war. “His best path forward is to pursue three lines of effort in parallel,” author Richard Goldberg (of Foundation for Defense of Democracies) wrote. It must be remembered that very recently a former senior official from FDD Action, the think tank’s lobbying arm, joined Trump’s Iran negotiating team – his name is Nick Stewart.

Here are the three:
• Sustain the blockade and accompanying economic warfare to destabilize the regime’s hold on the state;
• Remake the world in America’s energy dominance image to mitigate long-term price impacts while undermining China’s global ambition to defeat the United States;
• Order the US military to forge a path through the Strait of Hormuz to restore freedom of navigation on our terms not Tehran’s.
…if only simply ordering a military “path through” was that easy!

“You might call the latter Operation Epic Passage — a combined naval and air mission of self-defense that offers escort to tankers and restores freedom of navigation, all while making clear to Tehran the devastating consequences of breaking cease-fire,” Goldberg, who openly boasts of his close ties to the Israeli government, also wrote. He further offered the mission name of “Blockade Plus”. After the opening days and weeks of Operation Epic Fury, when it became clear that the large-scale US and Israeli bombardment would not produced regime change in Iran, pundits widely questioned whether the Trump White House actually had a plan, or long-term strategic vision for the military mission.

And now, after more than 80 days in, the public gets Trump posting a NY Post article by a hawkish FDD writer, which seems more focused merely on ways to mitigate the blowback and ‘make the best’ of a failed regime change operation, in the wake of the administration’s constantly evolving stated goals.

Read more …

“..more than one billion Class B shares when and if the company establishes “a permanent human colony on Mars with at least one million inhabitants,”

How long do you think it will take to get one million people living on Mars? Will Musk live to see it?

Elon Musk Wants a Trillion-Dollar Payday, but There’s One Little Catch (Green)

The world finally got a peek at SpaceX’s closely held financials, after Elon Musk’s closely held space launch company filed for its initial public offering on Wednesday — and the details made a bigger splash than one of the company’s Starships making an uncontrolled water landing. The first shocker is that Musk’s salary last year was just $54,000. That’s about the same as a new human resources assistant or an apprentice electrician. That’s the only small figure you’ll see in the rest of this column because after this, the zeros get added on in a hurry. You know what? Forget the tease, and let’s go straight to the biggest figure.


In SpaceX’s nearly 400-page S-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company projects a Total Addressable Market (TAM) of $28.5 trillion. That’s a two and an eight and a five followed by 11 zeros. TAM is business jargon for “What’s the size of our market if everybody who needed our product or service actually bought our product or service?” SpaceX’s TAM includes launch customers, Starlink users, and xAI (that’s the company’s AI division) compute services. It’s the company’s compute ambitions that account for the lion’s share of the TAM.

Of the $28.5 trillion, “only about $2 trillion is directly related to space or the company’s Starlink network,” Ars Technica reported. “The remaining $26.5 trillion is believed to come from AI, largely from enterprise applications.” I had no idea how big xAI had already gotten until the Wall Street Journal revealed Wednesday night that “SpaceX is renting out compute capacity across its two large data centers to Anthropic, for some $1.25 billion a month.” And Anthropic is a rival. It’s no small feat when your competitor pays you nine figures, 12 times a year, for the privilege of using the same data centers you use for your LLM to run theirs. Nice work if you can get it, right?

“We believe we have identified the largest TAM in human history,” the company boasted in its S-1 report. “We believe our next trillion-dollar market is AI compute, which we contemplate will leverage our rockets and satellites for massive orbital deployment.” Putting computer centers in orbit solves the power problem with unlimited solar, and also clears a lot of regulatory hurdles. By hundreds of miles. The problem, of course, is getting all those birds flying. In January, SpaceX applied to the FAA for permission to launch one million satellites into Earth’s orbit to power xAI. One million satellites might be nothing more than a dream, but Starship — aka The Most Powerful Rocket in the World and Getting More Powerful All the Time — is key to realizing just a fraction of it.

The launch window for Starship Flight Test 12 opens at 6:30 p.m. Eastern today. So what’s this about Musk’s trillion-dollar payday? Musk’s salary might not be any bigger than a typical base-level IT support specialist’s, but he also has two yuge equity packages based on stellar performance. In March, SpaceX awarded Musk more than 300 million shares. But those shares only vest when and if the company completes construction of its “non-Earth-based data centers,” including 12 market cap goals that add $6.6 trillion in shareholder value. That’s more than triple the best current estimate of SpaceX’s worth. That’s not the big payout, however.

Musk will also earn more than one billion Class B shares when and if the company establishes “a permanent human colony on Mars with at least one million inhabitants,” and another series of market cap goals that increase the company’s worth by $7.5 trillion. With this IPO, Musk will almost certainly become the world’s first trillionaire. If he completes just one of the company’s two (admittedly ambitious) payouts, he’ll instantly become the first multitrillionaire.But let’s bring all this back down to Earth for a moment. Asa Fitch noted for the WSJ that “SpaceX made $18.7 billion of revenue last year. Getting to trillions will take quite a while, if it happens at all.”

That is an awfully big if. But if investors had to bet on anybody being able to do it — and they’ll finally get their chance with this IPO — it has to be the company’s $54,000 man.

Read more …

Impressive wherever you look.

SpaceX Files For Nasdaq IPO Under Symbol SPCX (ZH)

As expected, SpaceX filed its S1. The stock is expected to list on Nasdaq and Nasdaq Texas under the ticker “SPCX.” No specific share count, price range, or total offering size is finalized yet (placeholders are used). But, with expectations of a $1.5 trillion market cap, that means SPCX will trade at a 77x LTM Revenue multiple!


Mission and Overview SpaceX’s mission is to make life multiplanetary, advance scientific understanding of the universe, and extend consciousness to the stars. It positions itself as a vertically integrated builder across Space, Connectivity (Starlink), and AI (via xAI acquisition). The company has revolutionized space access with reusable rockets (Falcon family, Starship development), built the world’s largest LEO satellite constellation for broadband, and is scaling AI compute and frontier models (Grok) with real-time data from X.

Key Corporate Details
Dual-class structure: Class A (1 vote/share) and Class B (10 votes/share). Elon Musk (founder, CEO, CTO, Chairman) will retain dominant voting control post-IPO (majority of the board via Class B and overall voting power), making SpaceX a “controlled company” under Nasdaq rules. Basis of presentation: Financials include retrospective recasts for the xAI acquisition (Feb 2026) and X Holdings (via xAI, 2025), plus a 5-for-1 stock split (May 2026). Underwriters: Led by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, BofA, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan, and others.

Consolidated Financial Highlights (preliminary/selected):
Q1 2026: Revenue $4.69B, operating loss $1.94B, Adjusted EBITDA $1.13B. FY 2025: Revenue $18.67B, operating loss $2.59B, Adjusted EBITDA $6.58B. Heavy capex (especially AI) and Starship R&D; Starlink (Connectivity) is the current profit engine.

Business Segments (as of/through Q1 2026 and FY 2025)
Space (launches, Dragon, Starship development): Dominant global launch provider (>80% of mass-to-orbit in recent years, >99% Falcon success rate). Key vehicles: Falcon 9 (reusable, ~23t to LEO), Falcon Heavy (~64t), Dragon (cargo/crew to ISS), Starship (in testing, targeting full reusability and massive scale).Revenue: $619M (Q1 2026), $4.1B (2025). Still investing heavily in R&D/Starship.

Connectivity (Starlink):
~9,600 broadband/mobile satellites in LEO (~10.3M subscribers across 164 countries/territories as of Mar 31, 2026). High-speed, low-latency broadband (median ~225 Mbps peak for residential); expanding enterprise, government, maritime/aviation, and satellite-to-mobile (direct-to-phone, ~650 dedicated satellites, ~7.4M devices in ~30 countries). Strong growth: Revenue $3.26B (Q1 2026), $11.4B (2025, +~50% YoY); highly profitable at segment level.

AI (xAI/Grok/X integration):
Gigawatt-scale terrestrial AI training clusters (e.g., COLOSSUS); plans for orbital AI compute satellites (using solar power, starting ~2028).
Grok frontier models (truth-seeking, strong scientific reasoning benchmarks); integrated with X (~1.3B supported accounts, 550M MAUs, hundreds of millions of daily posts).
Revenue $818M (Q1 2026), $3.2B (2025), but heavy losses due to compute/infrastructure investments.

Here’s the financials visualized (xAI is represented by the green slabs)…

Free cash flow struggling under the weight of that giant green slabs…

So, xAI is the giant money suck while Starlink keeps the engine running (but despite breaking out in 2025, Starlink user growth seems to be slowing a little):

Finally, one thing that stood out was that Anthropic is paying xAI $1.25BN per month (through May 2029) to utilize ‘Colossus’ for AI compute.

Musk took to X to explain further his vision for this segment:

“As the recently expanded partnership with Anthropic demonstrates, SpaceX is offering AI compute as a service at significant scale.
We are in discussions with other companies to do the same.
Over time, especially with orbital data centers, we expect to serve AI at extremely high scale.

If you build it (in space), they will come?

Read more …

As a Democrat, perhaps, yes.

Is This the Beginning of the End for John Fetterman? (Matt Margolis)

John Fetterman’s chief of staff, Cabelle St. John, resigned on Wednesday, according to a source who spoke to Axios. She had been with the Pennsylvania Democrat since he first arrived in Washington roughly three-and-a-half years ago and was elevated to chief of staff in 2025. Her official last day is still weeks away, but the writing was on the wall long before this week. This isn’t a one-off. Fetterman experienced a staff exodus in 2025, and the pattern of turnover is a sign that his rare independent streak is just too much for his party to tolerate. Former aides have cited frustration with his unwavering support for Israel, his noticeably warmer relationship with President Donald Trump, and what they describe as a difficult working environment on a personal level.


“This is a guy who came in talking about being a champion for labor and he’s gone pretty quiet on it,” the former aide said last year. “This is a guy who, since Trump won, is, for lack of a better word, basically a useful idiot for Republicans. He’s supporting stuff, and it gives them cover to say, ‘Look it’s bipartisan, we got Fetterman.'” None of this seems to bother Fetterman. After Axios published the story, he fired off a text to the outlet dismissing the whole thing. “So much for the turnover issue. Clicks!” he wrote, attaching an image claiming other Senate offices have higher turnover rates.It sounds like he’s not exactly losing sleep over it.

In a recent appearance on Jesse Watters’ show, Fetterman cut to the heart of what separates him from the rest of his party. “Why can’t we just, you know, root for our military?” he said. “Why can’t we just say I don’t have to agree with everything the president has done or the kind of things that he says. But, you know, we should be on the side of America, and we should be on the side of civilization and the free world. And I’m on that side. And I don’t know why I’m the only Democrat that says those kinds of things at this point.”

And that’s the whole problem for his party, anyway. He’s asking a question that should have an obvious answer, and it doesn’t, because the modern Democratic Party instinctively opposes Trump on everything, including things that are just plain old stupid to oppose. They’re even whining about repairing the reflecting pool, for crying out loud.

The message from the left to Fetterman is: You’re not staying in your lane, and you have to be punished. Support the war in Iran? Support strong borders? Support Israel? Well, sorry, you’re way out of touch with the Democratic Party today. This isn’t a good sign for him. Sure, congressional staff experience turnover all the time, but how many Democratic staffers are going to want to join his staff to replace those who left? Working for Fetterman is likely to become a career-ender for those who want to work in Washington, and I can totally see Democrats using this as a means to pressure Fetterman into compliance.

The resignation of Fetterman’s chief of staff may be just the latest domino to fall, but the real question looming over Fetterman’s political future is whether this staff exodus marks the beginning of the end for a senator who refuses to play by his party’s rules. Democrats demand ideological conformity, and Fetterman’s rare independent streak will become a liability, making his office radioactive to potential staffers — staffers he needs to function.

Read more …

We’ll see more about this. Funny it’s just a report, but everyone seems to call it an autopsy.

The DNC 2024 Autopsy Is Here, and It’s a Disaster (Amy Curtis)

The DNC 2024 Autopsy Is Here, and It’s a Disaster. Last week, Kamala Harris was telling donors she wanted the DNC’s 2024 election report, probably better referred to as an autopsy, released. Now the report is coming out, and it’s bound to be a doozy. DNC Chair Ken Martin released a statement on the report, admitting it’s not up to his standards. And you’ll soon see why.


Here’s what the statement says: “When I was elected DNC chair, I commissioned an after-action review of the 2024 election that I wanted to be honest and transparent, and with actionable and specific takeaways for the future of the Democratic Party. When I received the report late last year, it wasn’t ready for primetime — not even close — and because no source material was provided, it would have meant starting over. I could not in good faith put the DNC’s stamp of approval on the report that was produced.

After last November’s massive Democratic wins, I didn’t want to create a distraction, but by not putting the report out, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction. For that, I sincerely apologize. For full transparency, I am releasing the report as we received it, in its entirety, unedited and unabridged. It does not meet my standards, and it won’t meet your standards, but I am doing this because people need to be able to trust the Democratic Party and trust our word.

There’s a lot to parse in this statement. The first takeaway is that the DNC is such a mess that they looked at this report and had no way of actually fixing it. This tells us their party is just as big a disaster as this report. Second, the ‘massive Democratic wins’ Martin touts have largely been a disaster. Spanberger got smacked down by both the Virginia state Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, Democrats are losing House seats across the country, and approval of Congressional Democrats is at a new all-time low.

Ouch.

Parts of the report are being summarized and shared online. The biggest takeaways are not surprises to those who paid attention. It turns out President Trump’s ‘they/them’ messaging was highly effective, Democrats neglected rural voters and local parties, and the Democrats failed to define themselves but relied on ‘not Trump’ messaging instead. We’re all aware that there was significant tension and backroom fighting between Kamala Harris’ campaign staff and the Biden administration. The autopsy shows the Biden team was criticized for not adequately preparing Kamala Harris.

There are also no mentions of Israel, Gaza, or Palestine.

This is sure to tick off both sides of the aisle. The Left’s anti-Israel, antisemitic base will say the Democrats’ position on Gaza was problematic, while other voters will see their increasingly antisemitic candidates and office holders as alarming.

Read more …

Law-bending.

What Really Happened in Virginia’s Redistricting Case (Von Spakovsky)

“Shocking.” “Deflating.” “Sickening.” “It’s not good news.”


If someone heard the reactions of House Democratic lawmakers to the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision on the Commonwealth’s recent partisan gerrymandering scheme, they might be forgiven for assuming the ruling posed some kind of existential threat to the rule of law in the Commonwealth. In a letter to his party, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries referred to the decision as “egregious” and “dripping with far-right partisanship,” the result of “MAGA extremists desperate to rig the midterm elections.”

Chalk these wildly hyperbolic statements up as yet another reason to disbelieve left-wing partisan hype. In fact, Jeffries must have been looking in the mirror when he made those claims, since it was Virginia Democrats’ “egregious” misbehavior “dripping with far-left partisanship” that was the culmination of “Democratic extremists trying to rig the midterm elections” in the state.The Virginia Supreme Court’s decision in Scott v. McDougle was, in fact, a full-throated defense of the state’s constitution, the rule of law, and the people of Virginia’s right to make informed decisions on possible alterations to the Commonwealth’s constitution.

What was lost in the frenzied hysteria of Democrats and their allies in the media in the immediate aftermath of the decision was that the majority opinion, written by Justice D. Arthur Kelsey, simply upheld the process outlined in the Constitution that was required to adopt the proposed redistricting amendment. The Democrats’ hasty process violated Article XII, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution. There was no partisanship in the opinion at all, with the exception perhaps of the dissent by three justices who refused to enforce the constitutional requirements.

Article XII requires the General Assembly to vote on any proposed amendment to the Constitution twice, with a general election of members to the House of Delegates occurring between the two votes. The court’s ruling centers on that (supposedly) intervening House election, held in 2025, not the recent vote on the amendment itself. The Virginia Supreme Court found that the 2025 House election did not actually occur after the first time and before the second time the General Assembly voted on the amendment.

Early voting (Virginia law allows voting to start 45 days before Election Day) for the House of Delegates elections began on September 19, but the General Assembly didn’t vote on the proposed amendment until October 31 in a “special” session that was itself open to challenge. Accordingly, 1.3 million votes, 40% of the election total, had already been cast when the legislature approved the referendum. That was 1.3 million people who had already voted who had no way of knowing their future representative’s position on an amendment to their Constitution.

The violation of Article XII, Section 1 here is obvious—to everyone but the Virginia government, now entirely controlled by Democrats, which argued that when the state constitution said the Assembly’s vote needed to occur before the election, it meant Election Day. Justice Kelsey’s opinion masterfully dissects this argument as lacking any meaningful support from law or history.

Read more …

“So we believe in making America great again. You can’t do that unless you protect your borders. I’d encourage our friends in the UK to follow the same path.”

Vance Urges UK Patriots To Defend Their Culture Against Starmer (MN)

US Vice President JD Vance has sent a direct message of support to Britons standing up for their culture, telling attendees of the Unite the Kingdom rally to push forward despite Keir Starmer’s attempts to silence opposition to mass migration. The rally, held this past weekend in London and organised by Tommy Robinson, saw thousands of patriots turn out waving British flags. Starmer’s government had tried to sabotage the event by blocking visas for 11 foreign speakers it labelled “far-right agitators.”


The Prime Minister openly boasted about the bans on X, writing “I’ll always champion peaceful protest. But the Unite the Kingdom march organisers are peddling hatred and division. We’ve already blocked visas for far-right agitators who want to come here to spew their extremist views. They don’t speak for the decent, fair, respectful Britain I know.” He followed up: “Today the voices of division will be loud. They don’t speak for the country I know, one that belongs to all of us.” A video from the event captured a striking contrast, showing a left-wing woman in tears hugging her masked companion in fright at the sight of the national flag.

https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/2056257812469018990?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2056257812469018990%7Ctwgr%5E5764f5a7abbc04d69e0037cffdd0fe954dcbc4e6%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmodernity.news%2F2026%2F05%2F20%2Fwatch-vance-urges-uk-patriots-to-defend-their-culture-against-starmer-mass-migration-betrayal%2F

Vance rejected the establishment narrative that wanting secure borders equals extremism. “To everybody in the UK who rejects 3rd world migration, I’d encourage them to just KEEP ON GOING! It’s OK to want to defend your culture!” Vance stated. He added, “All over the West is this idea that the way to generate prosperity is to bring in MILLIONS and millions of unvetted people and DROP them into your neighborhoods — and we simply reject that idea!” “It’s OK to want to live in a safe neighborhood. It’s okay to want your job to go to yourself and your neighbors and not to a stranger who you don’t even know. It is reasonable for the people in Western societies to want to control who comes into their country and who doesn’t,” Vance stressed.

He added: “A lot of people, frankly, a lot of people in the media have tried to persuade all of those people that it’s somehow racist to want to protect your borders… even though very often the very people who are most affected by low wage immigration are lower income black and Hispanic Americans right here in the United States of America, and I guarantee that’s true in the UK.” Vance concluded by drawing a direct link to America First: “So we believe in making America great again. You can’t do that unless you protect your borders. I’d encourage our friends in the UK to follow the same path.”

This latest intervention builds on Vance’s repeated clashes with Starmer and European leaders. He previously called out the British Prime Minister to his face over the UK’s free speech crackdown. The US later vowed to use its “full arsenal of tools” against Starmer’s policies. Vance has also long warned about the dangers of Europe’s migration experiment, describing it as “civilisational suicide” He has cautioned that Islamist extremists could seize control of European nukes within 15 years. Vance has also triggered globalist outrage with his blunt speeches on replacement-level migration.

While Starmer brands patriotic pushback as “hatred and division,” ordinary Britons at the rally made clear they simply want what Vance described as basic common sense: safe streets, jobs for locals, and control over their borders. Vance’s words arrive as frustration with open borders boils over across the West. Working-class communities on both sides of the Atlantic are paying the price through suppressed wages, overburdened services, and rising insecurity — effects the political class routinely dismisses. By standing with those who reject cultural erasure, Vance is highlighting a fundamental truth: people of free nations have the sovereign right to preserve their identity and security.

Read more …

“..If this modality in the behavior of Europeans changes in favor of dialogue, we will only welcome it..”

‘Russians Ready For Conversation’ With Europe — Kremlin (TASS)

Russia is hearing statements from European capitals that they will have to talk to Moscow, and it confirms its readiness for such a conversation, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said when asked by TASS about Europe’s discussions of candidates for the role of negotiator with Russia. “Indeed, in the last 3-4 weeks we have heard statements from Mr. [Finnish President Alexander] Stubb, and we have also heard statements from Berlin that sooner or later it will be necessary to talk to the Russians directly,” he said.

“Russians are ready to engage,” Peskov noted. “We believe that talking is always better than leading to complete confrontation, which is exactly what the Europeans are doing now. If this modality in the behavior of Europeans changes in favor of dialogue, we will only welcome it,” he said. The very fact that expert discussions are underway in the EU around this topic is a good thing, Peskov said, adding that “just a few months ago, even such discussions weren’t taking place in Europe.”

Read more …

According to Russian Foreign Ministry’s Ambassador-at-Large for the crimes of the Kiev regime Rodion Miroshnik, the European Union’s actions show a complete lack of willingness to follow a peaceful path

Europe Seeks To Block Any Talks On Ukraine Settlement — Russian Diplomat (TASS)

European countries seek to sabotage any negotiations on a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, Rodion Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Ambassador-at-Large for the crimes of the Kiev regime, told TASS in an interview during a working visit to Bangkok.


“Judging by official statements from EU leaders and the so-called E3 group (the United Kingdom, Germany, and France – TASS), one can see an irreconcilable desire to derail any form of negotiations and reject a political and diplomatic path to resolving the conflict. They declare that they want talks, but at the same time they decide to issue yet another package of sanctions, allocate multi-billion-euro loans to Ukraine, and launch new programs to train Ukrainian troops and supply weapons. There is an old rule: look at what politicians do, not what they say. The European Union’s actions show a complete lack of willingness to follow a peaceful path,” he said.

“I believe it is not enough to simply say it would be good to talk to Russia, this must be backed by actions that would prove that the EU is ready to stop financing the bloodshed in Ukraine. It is no secret that if Western funding stops, the war will end. This is acknowledged both in the West and by all external observers. But for now, Western countries continue to supply weapons and finance Ukraine,” Miroshnik added.

Foreign ministers of EU countries are set to discuss candidates for a possible mediator role in talks with Russia, the Financial Times newspaper previously reported. According to sources cited by the paper, the issue will be raised at an informal meeting on May 27-28 in Cyprus. Potential candidates reportedly include former Italian and German prime ministers Mario Draghi and Angela Merkel, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and his predecessor Sauli Niinisto.

On May 9, Russian President Vladimir Putin, answering journalists’ questions, said that former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is the preferred candidate for possible negotiations between the EU and Russia. Moscow has never been closed to negotiations, he added.

Read more …

“Drills Are Intended To Send A Signal”:

Russia Holds Massive Nuclear Drills On Land, Sea And Air (ZH)

Trucks carrying intercontinental ballistic missiles rumbled over forest roads, atomic-powered submarines set sail from Arctic and Pacific ports, and crews scrambled into warplanes as Russia and neighboring Belarus held the final stage of their joint nuclear drills Thursday. Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed the maneuvers in a video call with his Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko. “The use of nuclear weapons is an extreme, exceptional measure for ensuring the national security of our states,” Putin said, according to AP. Lukashenko earlier inspected Russian short-range nuclear-capable Iskander ballistic missiles at a military unit involved in the drills and declared: “I dreamed about this machine a long time ago.”


The three-day drills that began Tuesday come amid a surge in Ukrainian drone strikes. including on Moscow’s suburbs that killed three people and damaged several buildings and industrial facilities. The strikes made it harder for officials in the Kremlin to cast the conflict in Ukraine — now in its fifth year — as something so distant that it doesn’t affect the daily routines of Russian civilians.

Drills involve wide array of nuclear weapons
Russia’s Defense Ministry said the exercise involved 64,000 troops, over 200 missile launchers, more than 140 aircraft, 73 surface warships and 13 submarines, including eight armed with nuclear-tipped ICBMs. The drills focused on the “preparation and use of nuclear forces under the threat of aggression,” it said. The maneuvers also practice cooperation with Belarus, an ally that hosts Russian nuclear weapons. Russian arsenals in Belarus include its latest intermediate range nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile system.

Along with nuclear-tipped ground- and submarine-launched ICBMs, the maneuvers featured a broad assortment of short- and medium-range weapons. Unlike the intercontinental missiles that can destroy entire cities, tactical nuclear weapons intended for use against troops on the battlefield are less powerful. They include aerial bombs and warheads for short- and medium-range missiles and artillery munitions. The Defense Ministry said the Russian armed forces test-fired Yars and Sineva ICBMs, as well as medium-range sea-launched Zircon and air-launched Kinzhal missiles, noting that all missiles hit their designated practice targets. Belarusian troops test-fired a short-range Iskander ballistic missile inside Russia.

Putin has repeatedly reminded the world about Moscow’s nuclear arsenals since the war in Ukraine started in February 2022 to deter the West from ramping up support for Kyiv. In 2024, the Kremlin adopted a revised nuclear doctrine, noting that any nation’s conventional attack on Russia that is supported by a nuclear power will be considered a joint attack on his country. That threat was clearly aimed at discouraging the West from allowing Ukraine to strike Russia with longer-range weapons and appears to significantly lower the threshold for the possible use of Moscow’s nuclear arsenal.

The revised doctrine also placed Belarus under the Russian nuclear umbrella. Putin has said that Moscow will retain control of its nuclear weapons deployed in Belarus, which borders Ukraine and NATO members Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, but would allow its ally to select the targets in case of conflict. The maneuvers are held amid an increase in drone activity in the Baltic nations. On Tuesday, a NATO jet shot down a Ukrainian drone over southern Estonia. Ukraine apologized for that “unintended incident,” without specifying what had happened.

On Wednesday, an emergency announcement about a drone flying over Belarus prompted residents of the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius, including top officials and lawmakers, to take shelter and led to a brief closure of its airport. Ukrainian drones targeting Russia’s Baltic ports and energy facilities have recently crossed or come down in NATO territory on several occasions. Amusingly, instead of blaming the source, Ukraine, Western officials blamed Russian electronic jamming of the drones.

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service said Tuesday that Ukraine is preparing drone attacks against Russia from the territory of the Baltic countries and warned of retaliation It alleged Ukrainian military personnel had been deployed to Latvia and warned that the country’s membership in NATO wouldn’t protect it from “just retribution.” Latvian authorities said the allegation was not true. Last month, the Russian Defense Ministry published a list of factories in Europe that it said were involved in producing drones and their components for Ukraine. It warned that attacks on Russia involving drones manufactured in Europe are fraught with “unpredictable consequences.”

Some commentators interpreted the bellicose statements from Moscow and this week’s exercise featuring short- and medium-range nuclear weapons capable of reaching targets in Europe as part of Kremlin efforts to discourage Western allies from bolstering support for Ukraine. Asked what message the nuclear exercise was intended to send, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded that “any drills are intended to send a signal,” but wouldn’t elaborate.

Read more …

“Europe is the ‘jungle’ now. No garden left to speak of.”

Irrelevant Europe (J.B. Shurk)

Josep Borrell is a Spanish socialist who held several high-ranking positions in the European Union. Until 2024, he was a vice-president of the European Commission and the high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy. In that capacity, he ran Europe’s External Action Service, which is the diplomatic body that executes Europe’s foreign policy decisions around the world. He remains a man with a great deal of influence over European perspectives.


In 2022, Borrell created a bit of an international incident when he described Europe as a “garden” and the rest of the world as a “jungle.” “We have built a garden,” he told aspiring European diplomats in Bruges, Belgium. “Most of the rest of the world is a jungle. The jungle could invade the garden. The gardeners should take care of it.” As the head of the European Defense Agency, Borrell’s comments made strategic sense. As he said in that same speech, “The jungle has a strong growth capacity…Walls will never be high enough to protect the garden. The gardeners have to go to the jungle, Europeans have to be much more engaged with the rest of the world. Otherwise, the rest of the world will invade us, by different ways and means.”

Borrell’s speech came seven years after German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to open her country’s borders to millions of Islamic immigrants. Originally touted as a humanitarian policy designed to temporarily shelter refugees from war-torn Syria, Germany’s generous welfare programs quickly became a magnet for young men across the Middle East and North Africa. When Merkel declared on August 31, 2015, “We can do this,” she initiated an all-of-society “welcome culture” that quickly produced a full-blown migrant crisis for the whole continent. Over ten years later, the influx of millions of Muslims into Europe has transformed school demographics and local politics, unleashed an explosion in sex crimes and anti-European violence, strained Europe’s hospital services and social safety nets, and exacerbated government debt.

Speaking after the “jungle” had already successfully invaded Europe’s “garden,” Borrell knew there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle. Merkel’s fateful decision to “welcome” Middle Easterners to Europe transformed cities and towns across Europe into the Middle East. Borrell also knew that the European Union’s patchwork defense agency did not have the requisite military and espionage assets to effectively protect the continent. So he tried to fashion his corps of young diplomats into a network of information and persuasion agents who could do Europe’s bidding around the world.

Borrell’s message got lost in the ensuing international kerfuffle over his “garden” / “jungle” division of the world. From Russia to Canada, Africa to Southeast Asia, every self-described “foreign policy expert” took umbrage at Borrell’s bluntness. Perpetually offended virtue-signalers hadn’t gotten so worked-up since President Trump had called Haiti a “shithole country” four years earlier. Just as Conan O’Brien felt compelled to white-knight for Haiti’s dystopian, cannibal gangland by visiting a heavily guarded resort in the Caribbean country and recklessly encouraging vacationers to join him, legions of politically correct snobs from around the planet recorded social media videos from their country estates in which they turned tsk-tsk-ing into a veritable lingua franca for the vicariously aggrieved.

All the “very best people” denounced Borrell for promoting a scarcely disguised restoration of European imperialism, colonialism, fascism, and genocide. Young international students enjoying university scholarships and living in Europe for free made sure to remind Borrell that “diversity is our strength.” Borrell’s socialist comrades beat him over the head with Europe’s prime directive: multiculturalism über alles. Mohammadbagher Forough, a random research fellow at the German Institute for Global and Area Studies, publicly reprimanded Europe’s foreign minister thusly: “This kind of comment puts a serious dent in the enterprise of European strategic autonomy. It upsets, at the most profound level, countries in the rest of the world, because of the history of colonialism.”

In other words, Europe’s “ruling class” and auxiliary straphangers condemned Borrell for daring to defend the beneficiaries of Western civilization. He was encouraged by threat of high-culture social banishment to follow Chancellor Merkel’s example in supplicating before the migrant hordes. The message was clear: Europe’s minister of defense cannot properly “defend” Europe unless he allows non-Europeans to take over the continent. It was further proof that Europe is irreparably lost.

Since his departure from the European Union’s foreign policy perch at the end of 2024, Borrell has spent most of his time in public lambasting President Trump’s global leadership. A staunch supporter of Ukraine who once threatened to “annihilate” the Russian army, Borrell has frequently defended the honor of Volodymyr Zelenskyy by claiming that Ukraine’s holdover president is leading “the resistance” and “deserves respect.” After President Trump described Zelenskyy as a “dictator without elections,” Borrell called the “accusation” the “height of dishonesty.” When President Trump and Vice President Vance took offense to Zelenskyy’s sense of entitlement and disregard for American taxpayers who have paid the salaries and pensions of Ukraine’s government workforce, Borrell screamed on X, “Trump and Vance have put on a disgraceful show. I am ashamed of that behavior.”

In response to Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference last year during which the vice president excoriated Europe’s crackdown on free speech and political dissent, Borrell lectured his erstwhile colleagues: “This is a declaration of political war against the European Union.” Going further, Europe’s former defense minister declared, “Europe must stop pretending that Trump is not an adversary and assert its technological, security, and political sovereignty with clarity and strength.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2057261488256303134?s=20 https://twitter.com/GuntherEagleman/status/2057605618085548082?s=20 https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/2057327151964131432?s=20

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

May 172026
 


René Magritte The voice of blood 1948


Tehran Claims US Faces Escalating Economic Fallout From ‘War Of Choice’ (ZH)
Persian Gulf Countries ‘Refused’ UAE Call For Joint Attack On Iran (Cradle)
China Confirms Boeing Deal, Will Cut Select Levies & Expand Agri Trade (ZH)
Vance or Rubio in 2028 Have to Be ‘the Bridge to the Future’ (Tim O’Brien)
Attractive Young Women Are Now The New Face Of The ‘Far-Right’ (ZH)
Colorado Governor Commutes Whistleblower Tina Peters’ Sentence (Salgado)
A Society Without God Is a Society Without Truth (Josh Hammer)
Everything Is Awesome About This Spencer Pratt Ad (Matt Margolis)
Sarmat: The Missile Meant To Make Any Enemy Think Twice (Kornev)
Trump Blasts Lauren Boebert for Campaigning with DeceptiCON Thomas Massie (CTH)
Incumbent Senator Bill Cassidy Loses His Senate Seat in Primary (CTH)
Supreme Court Delivers Devastating Blow to Democrats Gerrymandering (Margolis)
Supreme Court Rejects Attempt To Revive Virginia Congressional Map (ZH)
Republican Lead In Redistricting Race is About To Get Bigger (Ben Whedon)

 


 

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2055299836145254860?s=20 https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2055411483526181048?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2055645786923282637?s=20

 


 


The IRGC can bleed people profoundly before they squeal.

Tehran Claims US Faces Escalating Economic Fallout From ‘War Of Choice’ (ZH)

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned Saturday that the United States would face mounting economic fallout from its “war of choice” against Iran, as both sides appear settled into a long game of waiting to inflict the most severe economic and political damage on the other. In a post on X, Araghchi said Americans would bear the escalating financial costs of the conflict with Tehran. “Put aside gas price hike and stock market bubble. Real pain begins when U.S. debt and mortgage rates start to jump,” he wrote in English. This isn’t the first time Iranian officials and state media have tried to directly appeal to the American public.


Araghchi also pointed to growing economic strain inside the United States, saying auto loan delinquencies had already climbed to their highest level in more than 30 years. “This was all avoidable,” he added, framing the start of the conflict as Trump’s ‘war of choice’ in the Middle East. Of course, the Pentagon has a big card to play too, as on Saturday US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that four vessels in the Hormuz area were “disabled to ensure compliance.” In an official statement it said that that since the imposition of a naval blockade on Iranian ports, 75 commercial vessels have been redirected and four others disabled to “ensure compliance”. There is no doubt the US naval blockade is putting immense economic pressure on the Iranian government, society, and the energy sectors as crude shit-ins loom, or are in progress…

One Saudi-funded source alleges of the tightening hardship situation inside Iran: Fuel shortages and tighter rationing are pushing drivers across Iran into a growing gasoline black market, with citizens describing long lines at gas stations and sharply inflated prices in messages sent to Iran International. The accounts describe growing frustration over restricted access to subsidized gasoline and arbitrary limits imposed by operators, leaving many motorists dependent on costly unofficial sales.

…Iran uses a subsidized fuel quota system controlled through electronic fuel cards. Every private vehicle receives a monthly gasoline allocation at discounted prices, while extra consumption is charged at higher rates. One citizen was cited in the same report as complaining: “One day there’s quota left on your card, the next day it says your quota is finished. They even steal the few drops of gasoline they give people.” The standoff drags on, amid reports the Trump administration is mulling resumption of the bombing campaign:

https://twitter.com/PressTV/status/2055259398931640510?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2055259398931640510%7Ctwgr%5E2be4e3dba3fd169c51e6df528881831460a20f72%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Ftehran-warns-us-faces-escalating-economic-fallout-war-choice-hardship-mounting-inside-iran

However, US and Gulf media reports about the economic and political crisis inside Iran have often been somewhat exaggerated, in ‘hopes’ of anti-regime sentiment being stirred enough for some kind of new anti-government uprising. But that has yet to come, after months of war launched by the US and Israel. It seems Washington is still pinning its hopes on exactly this.

Read more …

“Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman joined Saudi Arabia and Qatar in rejecting the UAE plan.”

Persian Gulf Countries ‘Refused’ UAE Call For Joint Attack On Iran (Cradle)

The UAE tried but failed to persuade neighboring states, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to take part in a coordinated military attack on Iran, Bloomberg reported Friday, citing sources familiar with the matter. UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed (MbZ) spoke by phone with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) and other regional leaders to propose the coordinated attacks, shortly after the US and Israel launched the war on Iran on February 28, the sources said.


During the calls, MbZ argued that the states that formed the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) must act as a bloc to attack Iran alongside the US and Israel. However, his fellow Gulf leaders told him it was “not their war,” according to the report. When Saudi Crown Prince MbS refused to go along with the scheme, already shaky ties between the UAE and Saudi Arabia were further strained. The Saudi refusal also contributed to the Emirates’ decision to leave OPEC and OPEC+, the oil-producing cartel, and deepen its existing ties to Israel.

The UAE ultimately carried out several strikes against Iran without support from other Gulf states in early March and in April. Iran targeted US bases and oil facilities in Saudi Arabia with drones in the first days of the war. Yet the kingdom focused its efforts on promoting Pakistani-mediated negotiations between Washington and Tehran. Qatar considered joining the UAE in an attack after Iranian missile strikes hit Doha’s Ras Laffan Industrial City, the world’s largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility, causing extensive damage and major fires, a Gulf official said. However, Doha also ultimately chose to de-escalate and throw its support behind negotiations.

Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman joined Saudi Arabia and Qatar in rejecting the UAE plan. One source said US officials were aware of the UAE effort and that Washington pushed Saudi Arabia and Qatar to join a coordinated military response. On Thursday, the Financial Times (FT) reported that Saudi Arabia had “floated” the possibility of reaching a “non-aggression pact” between Iran and neighboring states modeled on the 1975 Helsinki Accords, which eased tensions during the Cold War in Europe.

The Saudi-proposed pact for the day after the US-Israeli war on Iran ends reportedly has support from several European capitals, which view it as “the best way to avoid future conflict” and have urged Arab states to support it.The British daily cites an unnamed Arab diplomat who says that such a pact would be welcomed “by most Arab and Muslim states, as well as by Iran,” although severe concerns remain about Israel’s continued threats to reignite the war regardless of any deal.

Meanwhile, the two-day meeting of BRICS foreign ministers in New Delhi ended on Friday without a joint statement due to “differing views” on the US-Israeli war against Iran and the current situation in West Asia. The foreign ministers expressed “their respective national positions and shared a range of perspectives,” according to a statement issued by India.

The statement added that one member state had “reservations” about issues related to Gaza, as well as security in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said during the meeting that “Iran is a country that cannot be divided. The era of American dominance is over.” He also singled out the UAE for blocking the ministerial BRICS statement, and pointed out its “own special relationship with Israel.”

Read more …

Love the photo.

China Confirms Boeing Deal, Will Cut Select Levies & Expand Agri Trade (ZH)

One day after President Trump left Beijing, following his multi-day summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, China’s Commerce Ministry released new details about agreements it had reached to purchaseU.S.. planes and farm goods.


CHINA, US REACH ARRANGEMENTS ON BUYING US PLANES

The exact wording “reach arrangements”s in the Bloomberg headline is important because it suggests a framework, a commitment, or a negotiated understanding, not necessarily a finalized purchase contract for Boeing commercial jets. Based on earlier reports, Trump said China agreed to buy 200 Boeing planes, with the total potentially rising to 750 aircraft. The next set of headlines shows that the Trump team and Beijing have reached a partial trade de-escalation package following the summit:

CHINA, US AGREE TO REDUCE LEVIES ON A RANGE OF PRODUCTS
CHINA TO EXPAND BILATERAL TRADE W/ US ON AGR AND OTHER PRODUCTS
CHINA VOWS TO EXPAND BILATERAL AGRI TRADE WITH US

The headlines point to a U.S.-China trade détente that is constructive for American industry, exporters, and U.S. farmers. Now the larger question is what Trump and Xi agreed to behind closed doors regarding Tehran and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.


U.S. and China Agree To Establish Trade And Investment Boards As Trump-Xi Summit Delivers Modest Wins. U.S. and Chinese leaders agreed to establish a new “Board of Trade” and a parallel “Board of Investment” during President DonaldTrump’ss two-day visit to Beijing – a summit that ended much as it began: with significant pageantry, warm personal rapport between the leaders, and modest, incremental progress on trade. The new boards aim to oversee bilateral purchases, manage trade differences, facilitate deals in non-sensitive sectors (with roughly $30 billion in goods identified), and provide a standing channel to prevent future escalations without constant high-level intervention.

The boards were a pre-summit priority pushed by U.S. officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. They build on preparatory talks in South Korea that produced what both sides described as “generally balanced and positive outcomes.” Chinese state media, including Xinhua, highlighted the agreements as part of efforts to expand practical cooperation and maintain stable economic ties.

This development aligns with Xi Jinping’s broader push to reframe the bilateral relationship as one of “constructive strategic stability” – a new guiding vision intended to provide predictability for the next three years and beyond, emphasizing cooperation as the mainstay while allowing for “moderate competition” and “manageable differences.” Xi described it as a positive, sound, constant, and enduring stability that should translate into concrete actions.

Read more …

“The MAGA wing of the party is the party now. Neither Vance nor Rubio can distance themselves from that if they try.”

Vance or Rubio in 2028 Have to Be ‘the Bridge to the Future’ (Tim O’Brien)

People have asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio if he plans to run for president in 2028, and his answer has been the same every time. Unequivocally, he endorses Vice President JD Vance, who is assumed to be the likely Republican standard-bearer. At the same time, given the way in which Rubio has been used, while rising to the occasion every time, you cannot ignore him. President Donald Trump has not shied away from praising both Vance and Rubio, but he has been substantially more effusive lately in his comments about Rubio. This has more than a few people in Washington, D.C., chattering.


Vance had the perfect response for now. But he won’t be able to say this a year from now. In addition to performing the duties of his office, Rubio has taken on any number of ad hoc jobs, knocking it out of the park every time. He knows how to demand and get every other country in the world to respect the U.S. once again. He’s seamlessly put an end to the massive grift that was USAID. Any one of his accomplishments is more than most who’ve run the State Department in recent memory, and he’s not done. Vance is in an even more unenviable position if you’re looking ahead to 2028. It’s the vice president’s job not to show up the president, while at the same time, he cannot wield power the way certain cabinet officials can. This makes it harder for Vance to remind Americans that he can be the alpha.

Over the past 250 years, only six vice presidents ran for and won the presidency. And only four won the highest office as an incumbent vice president. They were John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George H.W. Bush. Richard Nixon and Joe Biden both eventually were certified as the winners of presidential elections, but not as part of an incumbent administration. When Nixon was the incumbent, he famously ran against John F. Kennedy in 1960 and lost. Biden got pushed aside in 2016 for Hillary Clinton and never got the chance to use his office as a springboard for the presidency. Instead, he was “elected” in 2020 by getting roughly 20 million more votes than any other Democrat candidate before or after. And he did all that by campaigning from his basement, hugging children uncomfortably, and telling stories about “Corn Pop.”

If I were named head of elections, one of the first things I’d do is organize a search party for those missing 20 million voters. Kamala Harris could have used them in 2024. The last incumbent vice president to graduate directly into the Oval Office was Bush. To say that’s not easy to do is an understatement. Playing second-fiddle for four years prior to a run for the highest office in the land can allow voters to forget how strong you are as an independent candidate at the top of a ticket. These are the challenges Vance faces, specifically, but not just Vance. Both he and Rubio will have to be their own men and try to step out from under the long shadow that Trump has cast. Both will have to combat the baggage that the left has continually heaped on Trump and everyone associated with his administration.

Trump created the America First movement. He created and defined Make America Great Again (MAGA). The MAGA wing of the party is the party now. Neither Vance nor Rubio can distance themselves from that if they try. Quite frankly, it would be dumb to try. Contrary to what the legacy media and the left do to frame Trump’s years as “chaos” or a failure, he has been wildly successful, and Americans know it. If Trump can bring the Iran situation under control, get some sort of election integrity guardrails in place, energy prices would come down, inflation would stabilize, and the prospects for a Republican 2028 election victory would be easier to foresee. Who would want to distance themselves from that?

Still, neither Vance nor Rubio can be another Donald J. Trump. They have to carve their own niche, while maintaining some continuity between MAGA and the next Republican administration. Another factor to consider is Trump himself. While he would not want his underlings taking credit for what he did, he also would not want them distancing themselves from MAGA to create their own identity for 2028. That’s a delicate balance. The smartest thing a Vance or a Rubio or even a Vance-Rubio ticket could do in the run-up to 2028 is to map out a comprehensive narrative and progression from MAGA to what’s next. I mean, if you just finished making America great again between 2024 and 2028, you don’t want to use MAGA as your rallying cry now. You need something new and fresh, but you want to stay true to America First.

Former Republican Tennessee governor and U.S. senator Lamar Alexander is coming out with a new autobiography, and he’s making the book tour rounds right now. He recently talked to Politico about the book and his life in politics. To be sure, Alexander represents everything about the Republican establishment that we conservatives are working to get past. He represents a Republican era where the GOP allowed the Democrats to make the rules even when the Republicans won. Kind of like what Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is doing right now.

Still, Politico asked him if he could have beaten incumbent President Bill Clinton had he gotten the GOP’s nomination instead of Bob Dole. Alexander’s answer is debatable on whether he could have beaten Clinton, but he observed something critical that can’t be overlooked when considering what Vance or Rubio would need to do to win in 2028.

He said, “It would have been hard. I thought I could do better than Dole. I said to Dole: ‘Don’t let [Clinton] have the bridge to the future.’ And Clinton took it and won it.” For either Vance or Rubio, that’s the challenge. To be a part of the Trump administration running for the presidency, you still have to come up with your own brand that’s new and different, while respecting the Trump political lineage and embracing the Trump record.

The rationale has to be: “We need more than four years” to accomplish all the things we set out to accomplish. We can’t go backward. Most importantly, they will need to take ownership of the whole “bridge to the future” brand (as a concept, not as a slogan) before any Democrat gets to it. Trump did just that with “Make America Great Again.” Vance or Rubio can do it and needs to do it pretty soon. The Republican nominee in 2028 must be perceived by the electorate as America’s bridge to a brighter future.

Read more …

I thought about it, and I decided I’m NOT going to complain.

Attractive Young Women Are Now The New Face Of The ‘Far-Right’ (ZH)

The Telegraph has published a piece so tone-deaf it reads like self-parody. According to the outlet, the “far-right” is no longer the domain of bald men in boots and tattoos. No, it’s now being led by “strikingly telegenic young women” who dare to look good on camera while warning about mass migration, grooming gangs, and cultural replacement. Three foreign activists – Ada Lluch, Valentina Gomez, and Eva Vlaardingerbroek – were banned from entering Britain for a Tommy Robinson rally, and the Telegraph can’t stop gushing over how “pretty” this makes the movement look. The government has banned at least seven foreign voices from attending the rally, including the women highlighted by the Telegraph.


Critics point out the blatant double standard: pro-Palestine marches with openly extremist rhetoric are often tolerated, while a native-focused demonstration drawing tens or hundreds of thousands draws preemptive visa blocks on speakers. Kier Starmer’s government waves in unvetted migrants and certain extremists but draws the line at articulate critics of mass migration. The Telegraph profiles the banned women in breathless detail. Catalan activist Ada Lluch has called out “complete invasion” of western democracies, American influencer Valentina Gomez warned about “rapist Muslims taking over,” and Dutch commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek spoke of “the rape, replacement and murder of our people.”

All three were barred from the UK, along with several other activists. Meanwhile, the government continues to wave in the very people these women are warning about. The Telegraph also warns about attractive home-grown women, including British influencer Saskia Teague. With over 100,000 Instagram followers, she mixes “happy happy happy” selfies with calls for “England for the English,” mass deportations, and an end to shame-free multiculturalism. The Telegraph acts shocked that she also praises her “Anglo-Saxon hair” and rejects the idea she’s being “used” by men.

Of course the usual suspects are wheeled out to clutch pearls. Hope Not Hate researcher Alex MacKinnon calls it a “glamorisation” effort to shed the “violent thug image.” Institute for Strategic Dialogue’s Hannah Rose says looking desirable builds followers and fits the ideology that women should be “aesthetically pleasing.” The implication is that these women can’t possibly believe what they’re saying – they must be grifting or being manipulated. Because in the eyes of the legacy media, no normal young attractive woman could possibly notice what’s happening to her country.

This is the same media that files stories on “far-right” threat while ignoring grooming gang scandals, no-go zones, and skyrocketing violence against women and girls. The Telegraph even admits the shift comes from young people “profoundly disaffected with mainstream parties” and disillusioned with modern life. Yet instead of asking why that disillusionment exists, they obsess over Instagram filters and “zhuzhing” the image. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has today claimed he’s all about “championing peaceful protest” while simultaneously blocking entry to those he dislikes. Starmer declared:

“I’ll always champion peaceful protest. But the Unite the Kingdom march organisers are peddling hatred and division,” then admitting that “We’ve already blocked visas for far-right agitators who want to come here to spew their extremist views.”

Read more …

“Tina Peters, a 73-year-old woman with cancer, was given a nine year jail sentence in Colorado because she caught the Democrats CHEATING..”

Colorado Governor Commutes Whistleblower Tina Peters’ Sentence (Salgado)

Colorado 2020 election whistleblower Tina Peters finally received some good news. Peters ended up at the epicenter of national controversy when she reportedly allowed an unauthorized person to access voting equipment in Mesa County in order to expose apparent election irregularities. Gov. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) granted Peters a commutation and parole as of June 1, based on a May 15 press release. Peters is a Gold Star Mother who lost her son, a Navy SEAL, in 2017.


It appears that the commutation might be due to her backing down somewhat from her previous allegations and efforts to expose apparent election fraud in Colorado back in 2020, when she was an election clerk. It is worth noting that a Democrat who tried to forge a thousand ballots in New Jersey received a sweetheart deal, sparing him any prison time, while Peters received almost a decade in prison as her sentence for trying to call attention to voting irregularities.

A statement on X posted on Peters’ account thanked Polis, expressed hopes for the future, and criticized people who had tried to storm the jail in support of her case. It said: I made mistakes, and for those I am sorry. Five years ago I misled the Secretary of State when allowing a person to gain access to county voting equipment. That was wrong. I have learned and grown during my time in prison and going forward I will make sure that my actions always follow the law, and I will avoid the mistakes of the past…

Upon release, I plan to do my best through legal means to support election integrity and based on my own personal experiences to elevate the cause of prison reform to help ensure the detention system is more fair and equitable for people of all ages. My experiences have given me a perspective that plan to share with others to improve Colorado’s corrections system. I am grateful for a second chance and an earlier release, and I look forward to doing good in the world.

Tina Peters https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2055393588754727270?s=20

President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called for Colorado to let Peters go altogether, reacted to the news on Truth Social with just two words: “FREE TINA!” In March, he strongly condemned the sentence Peters received for challenging the 2020 election. “Tina Peters, a 73-year-old woman with cancer, was given a nine year jail sentence in Colorado because she caught the Democrats CHEATING on the Presidential Election of 2020. FREE TINA!” he insisted.

A couple of days after that, Trump reflected again on the double standard Democrats impose, letting truly dangerous criminals go free while aggressively targeting their political opponents. “For years, Democrats ignored Violent and Vicious Crime of all shapes, sizes, colors, and types. Violent Criminals who should have been locked up were allowed to attack again. Democrats were also far too happy to let in the worst from the worst countries so they could rip off American Taxpayers,” he wrote.

“Democrats only think there is one crime – Not voting for them!” Trump continued. “Instead of protecting Americans and their Tax Dollars, Democrats chose instead to prosecute anyone they can find who wanted Safe and Secure Elections. Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest. Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the ‘crime’ of demanding Honest Elections. FREE TINA!”

Read more …

And now for something completely different.

A Society Without God Is a Society Without Truth (Josh Hammer)

Next Thursday evening, Jews will celebrate the holiday of Shavuot. This holiday, which occurs seven weeks and one day after Passover (hence the name Shavuot, which literally means “weeks”), commemorates perhaps the most transformative event in all of human history: the revelation of the Word of God to the ancient Israelite nation. It was at Mount Sinai, congregated at the base of the smoking and trembling mountain, that God promised the Israelites they would be a “kingdom of princes and a holy nation” if they accepted and maintained fidelity to His covenant. In unison, before they had even received the Ten Commandments, the Israelites responded, “All that the Lord has spoken we shall do!”


The Divine Revelation at Sinai fundamentally changed the relationship between mankind and truth. Before Sinai, mankind had understood truth as inherently subjective, subject to the ever-changing whims of the volatile gods. Now, after Sinai, there could be no such moral confusion. The one, true God — He who had created the universe and fashioned mankind in His image — had revealed His Will. Moral relativism and idolatry were now out. Moral objectivity and monotheism were now in. For the first time, there was a fixed barometer by which to judge man’s moral conduct, devise laws and political institutions, and live one’s day-to-day life more generally.

Because of the breadth and depth of its impact and lasting influence, the Divine Revelation at Sinai was the logical starting point for what we now call Western civilization. Writing thousands of years later at another inflection point in human history, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 31: “In disquisitions of every kind, there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasonings must depend.” In the United States specifically, and in Western civilization more generally, it was long obvious what those “primary truths” and “first principles” actually meant: the Word of God Himself. Such a properly anchored and oriented society is uniquely suited to improve mankind’s lot and advance human flourishing.

Crucially, only such a properly anchored society can claim to comprehend the truth — let alone assert that certain truths are “self-evident,” as we recall every Independence Day. Because when God falls by the wayside, truth does as well. Recent events underscore the point.

In a Washington Post op-ed earlier this month, Gregory Conti, a politics professor at perennially top-ranked Princeton University, lamented: “Several years ago, one of my colleagues at Princeton University hosted a lecture on religion and free speech. The talk didn’t seem to be landing with the students. Finally, he realized why: The speaker had made repeated reference to the Ten Commandments, and several students didn’t know what they were.” Conti noted that Princeton students are often smart and driven, but they lack basic religious literacy — even the difference between the Old and New Testaments. In short, many of America’s future leaders do not even recognize the “primary truths” and “first principles” upon which our civilization rests.

There is a clear casualty of this ignorance: our ability to accept reality and the truth. Consider, for example, the shocking inability to do precisely that among far too many members of America’s more avowedly secularist political party, the Democrats. A whopping 42% of Democrats believe the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Butler, Pa., in July 2024 was staged. A similarly galling 34% of Democrats believe the same about the recent attempted assassination of Trump and his Cabinet members at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington, D.C. There is, of course, zero evidence to support either belief. One might as well believe in Bigfoot, or that Neil Armstrong’s moon landing was fake.

Nor is this merely a left-leaning sociological phenomenon. There are plenty of Americans who have heterodox or perhaps even nominally right-leaning political views who have also lost touch with basic reality, allowing their brains to be rotted by mass consumption of delusional conspiracies and AI-driven online slop. We call them Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson fans.

There can be nothing good down this road. Only a society that is rooted in, and oriented toward, the eternal and the transcendental can ever hope to cultivate decent, truth-seeking citizens. When a free people loses the ability to discern between truth and fiction, rightness and wrongness, justice and injustice, there can only be only misery, despair and destruction. We’re losing that because, for far too long, we’ve been missing God. There is no better time than the run-up to America’s semiquincentennial — when we will celebrate the assertion of the self-evident truths that birthed the nation — to find Him once again. Frankly, America’s survival for another 250 years depends on it.

Read more …

“..enforce the law, arrest people who commit crimes, get the crackheads off the streets, and make sure firefighters are funded and ready to do their jobs. Once upon a time, these weren’t partisan issues.

Everything Is Awesome About This Spencer Pratt Ad (Matt Margolis)

Admittedly, I haven’t been paying much attention to the Los Angeles mayoral race, but a LEGO-animated campaign ad caught my attention, and I just had to write about it. The ad, published this week in support of Spencer Pratt’s 2026 campaign for mayor of Los Angeles, is making the rounds online, and for good reason. It’s a parody of “Everything Is Awesome” from The Lego Movie, set against a LEGO-animated cityscape that tells the dirty truth about the city under Karen Bass’s leadership. It opens with a scene that cuts straight to the truth: a man assaulting a police officer on a city street.


Everything is awful; everything is hell when you’re part of the scene. Karen Bass is awful and burning down our streets. Welcome to Los Angeles, where the criminals have more protections than the cops. Then there’s the drug crisis, which the ad renders in haunting, almost absurd LEGO detail: drug zombies shambling through city streets, needles and feces littering the sidewalks, and not a city official in sight to do anything about it. And Bass herself? The ad shows the incumbent mayor flying over her burning city — laughing.

And if you know anything about Bass, you know that’s not an exaggeration for effect. It’s a pretty accurate metaphor for her tenure. While neighborhoods smoldered during the January 2026 wildfires, Bass was abroad on a “diplomatic” trip. The city she governs has deteriorating public safety, a growing homeless population, and a drug crisis that officials have been dancing around for years. The “root cause” crowd keeps hunting for some undiscovered reason people are living on the streets surrounded by needles, as if the answer isn’t staring them in the face every morning on their commute.

I don’t know much about Pratt, but he lost his own home in the Palisades Fire. He’s not running for mayor as part of a vanity campaign; he is running because he has personally experienced the consequences of Bass’s leadership. While Bass lives in a city-owned mansion insulated from the consequences of her decisions, Pratt lives in a trailer, making the case that those in charge don’t have to deal with the mess they’ve created. The second half of the ad flips the script, painting Pratt as the man who will actually do something to save the city. And the best part is that his platform isn’t complicated: enforce the law, arrest people who commit crimes, get the crackheads off the streets, and make sure firefighters are funded and ready to do their jobs. Once upon a time, these weren’t partisan issues.


You don’t need to be a Lego Movie fan to appreciate the video. Does Pratt have a chance? He might. A new Emerson College poll shows Bass at 30% support, with Pratt surging to 22% just weeks before the June 2 primary, up 12 points since March. The top two finishers advance to a November runoff, which means Pratt is very much in this race. Honestly, this is a race worth watching. Karen Bass failed her city, and if she can still get reelected, it will tell you everything about Democrat voters.

Read more …

“Heavy missiles of this class are specifically designed to launch even under conditions of an incoming nuclear strike on their deployment area.”

Sarmat: The Missile Meant To Make Any Enemy Think Twice (Kornev)

On May 12, 2026, Russia carried out the second successful launch of its newest heavy liquid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile, the Sarmat. The launch marked another major milestone in the flight-testing program for Russia’s next-generation strategic missile system. Following the test, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that the first regiment equipped with Sarmat ICBMs would officially enter combat duty by the end of 2026.


A ballistic missile of this class is being developed in modern Russia for the first time. The Sarmat is intended to replace the Soviet-era Voevoda missiles, which until now have remained the most powerful ICBMs ever deployed. Thanks to the immense power of its liquid-fuel rocket engines, the Sarmat is expected to carry an unprecedented payload – between 10 and 14 medium-yield thermonuclear warheads, each with an estimated yield of around 700 kilotons, or potentially up to five maneuverable hypersonic glide vehicles similar to those used in the Avangard system.

Conventional ballistic warheads can be deployed together with penetration aids designed to overwhelm missile defense systems. However, maneuverable hypersonic glide vehicles present an entirely different challenge. Modern missile defense systems are effectively incapable of intercepting such weapons, making the Sarmat a uniquely formidable retaliatory strike platform. In 2022, Vladimir Degtyar, CEO of the Makeyev Design Bureau, announced that serial production of the fifth-generation RS-28 Sarmat ICBM had officially begun in Russia. “The missile system has already entered serial production and is fully supplied with the necessary materials and manufacturing equipment,” he stated.

According to Russian officials, the new ICBM will significantly strengthen the country’s strategic deterrent capability for the next 40 to 50 years. The Sarmat is believed to have a range of at least 12,000 kilometers while carrying roughly 10 tons of payload, including its post-boost vehicle and warheads. However, the missile is also reportedly capable of striking targets by approaching from the opposite direction – flying over the South Pole and effectively circling the globe. While such a trajectory would reduce the missile’s payload capacity, it would still allow for multiple nuclear warheads to reach their targets. The missile is also expected to achieve exceptional accuracy, with a probable circular error measured at no more than roughly 150 meters.

Preparations for deploying the first operational Sarmat missiles began back in 2023 at the missile division in Uzhur, located in southern Krasnoyarsk Krai. The process of replacing the aging Voevoda missiles with Sarmat systems is expected to continue for at least four to five years, if not longer. In addition to Uzhur, Sarmat missiles are also expected to be deployed near Dombarovsky in the Orenburg region.

In total, Russia is expected to field at least 50 hardened silo launchers for the Sarmat system, making it the most powerful and lethal component of the country’s nuclear retaliatory forces – a true weapon of retaliation. Heavy missiles of this class are specifically designed to launch even under conditions of an incoming nuclear strike on their deployment area. In theory, dozens of Sarmat missiles could leave their silos while under nuclear attack, carrying a combined total of roughly 500 warheads capable of devastating any potential adversary.

Over the coming years, the Sarmat is expected to complete its full flight-test program and receive multiple payload configurations. One variant will reportedly carry traditional MIRVed ballistic warheads similar to those used on the Voevoda system. Another, more advanced configuration would deploy hypersonic maneuverable glide vehicles developed by NPO Mashinostroyenia. At present, no existing missile defense system is considered capable of reliably intercepting such weapons.

What makes these glide vehicles so difficult to defeat is their flight profile. Unlike traditional ballistic warheads, they travel along a relatively low, flattened trajectory at hypersonic speeds near the edge of the atmosphere while retaining the ability to maneuver both in altitude and direction. As a result, they are detected much later than conventional reentry vehicles and are extraordinarily difficult to intercept due to their unpredictable maneuvering. The Sarmat may be able to carry more than a dozen standard warheads, but likely no more than three to five hypersonic glide vehicles. Nevertheless, such payloads would presumably be reserved for the highest-priority strategic targets – and, according to Russian military doctrine, those targets would be struck with near certainty.

Read more …

RINOs trying without Trump endorsement are having a hard time.

Trump Blasts Lauren Boebert for Campaigning with DeceptiCON Thomas Massie (CTH)

Thomas Massie is cut from the same Republican cloth as his dear friend, Ron DeSantis and his recent advocate Tucker Carlson. Like DeSantis and Carlson, Massie is a master manipulator who uses carefully crafted wedge points to divide the electorate and position himself for maximum benefit. Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert has been campaigning and trying to support Massie as the potential for him to lose a primary race is very real. This puts Boebert on the opposite side of President Trump on a very important matter of principle. Massie has accused President Trump of protecting Jeffrey Epstein’s enablers.


PRESIDENT TRUMP – “Is anyone interested in running against Weak Minded Lauren Boebert in Colorado’s Fourth Congressional District? You remember Lauren moved to the District when it became obvious that she couldn’t win in her original Congressional District (The Third!) — A Carpetbagger, indeed! Boebert is campaigning for the Worst “Republican” Congressman in the History of our Country, Thomas Massie, of the Great Commonwealth of Kentucky, and anybody who can be that dumb deserves a good Primary fight! Even though I long ago endorsed Boebert, if the right person came along, it would be my Honor to withdraw that Endorsement and endorse a good and proper alternative. Just let me know, or announce your Candidacy, and I will be there for you!” ~ President DONALD J. TRUMP

Read more …

Trump-endorsed competition.

Incumbent Senator Bill Cassidy Loses His Senate Seat in Primary (CTH)

–Unless something remarkable changes drastically, it looks like incumbent Republican Senator Bill Cassidy has come in third place, which means he has lost his Senate seat in the primary race. The runoff will be between Trump-endorsed Julia Letlow and State Treasurer John Fleming (June 27th).


Senator Bill Cassidy has lost his seat.

Read more …

Changing maps seems to be Democrats’ only option.

Supreme Court Delivers Devastating Blow to Democrats Gerrymandering (Margolis)

The Supreme Court rejected Virginia Democrats’ emergency appeal to revive their gerrymandered Virginia congressional map on Friday, delivering a final, fatal blow to their efforts in the state. The justices issued a brief order with no explanation. Still, the outcome was hardly surprising — the federal courts don’t typically wade into rulings made by state courts on state constitutional matters, and that’s exactly what happened here.


Virginia Democrats had passed new congressional maps through the General Assembly and pushed through a ballot referendum to lock those maps in. Voters narrowly approved it in April. But the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that Democrats violated the state constitution’s process for referring amendments to voters, specifically an “intervening-election requirement” that the General Assembly simply ignored. The result? Null and void. “This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void,” Justice D. Arthur Kelsey wrote in the majority opinion.

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2055421432411123879?s=20


Had the maps survived, they would have been a huge boon for the Democrats in the redistricting wars, giving the party a potential net gain of 4 seats. Democrats lost because they couldn’t be bothered to follow the rules they wrote. The attempt to appeal to the United States Supreme Court was a desperate Hail Mary bound to fail, and even Gov. Abigail Spanberger saw the writing on the wall and revealed she was no longer pushing to gerrymander the state.

None of this happened in a vacuum. Democrats spent years redrawing maps in blue states, systematically eliminating Republican-held districts wherever they could. For a long time, Republicans largely played defense. That changed last year when Texas made its move, redistricting mid-decade and sparking the current national battle. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, auditioning for the 2028 Democratic presidential primaries, decided to respond by getting California to pass its own new map. Democrats tried to do the same in Virginia, but they cut constitutional corners and paid for it.

Overall, the redistricting wars have not gone well for the Democrats, and making matters worse for them, last month, the high court ruled that racial gerrymandering was unconstitutional, clearing the way for red states in the South to eliminate majority-minority districts that had long served as reliable Democratic strongholds. Democrats have now lost on multiple fronts simultaneously, and they’ve spent — I mean, wasted — millions of dollars in the process.

Read more …

“The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed what we always knew: you cannot violate the Constitution to change the Constitution..”

Supreme Court Rejects Attempt To Revive Virginia Congressional Map (ZH)

Hammering the last nail in the coffin of what could have been a significant midterm factor, the US Supreme Court on Friday rejected Virginia Democrats’ request to use a new congressional district map, which was drawn to flip four House seats into Democratic control. As is typical in this kind of “emergency” ruling, the court provided no legal rationale or vote count — however no dissents were noted. The new map was expected to dramatically alter the composition of Virginia’s US House delegation, boosting Democrats from their current slim 6-5 edge to 10-1 domination. For context, in 2024 presidential balloting, Virginia voters were split 52% for Democrat Kamala Harris and 46% for Donald Trump.


On May 8, the Virginia Supreme Court denied a request from Democrats and state officials to lift a lower-court order blocking certification of the April 21 redistricting referendum. Voters approved the Democrat-accommodating map by a 52-to-48 margin, but a Virginia circuit court declared the referendum null and void, saying Democrats had run afoul of state constitutional measures that exist to fend off partisan gerrymandering. After that setback, Democrats sought to salvage their new map with an appeal to the US Supreme Court, which has now failed. Two days earlier, Gov Abigail Spanberger had already waved a white flag of sorts, implying that Virginia’s May 12 deadline for map changes made the emergency request to the US Supreme Court something of a moot point.

“What needs to happen is we need to focus on the task at hand, which is winning races in November,” she said. “I believe, somewhat doggedly, that we will [gain] two to four seats in the House of Representatives. … That is my goal. That is what I know is possible.” However, after the ruling, she opportunistically lashed out at the Supreme Court: Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, criticized the decision, which she said had the effect of nullifying “the votes of more than three million Virginians.” “As Governor, I will make sure voters know when and how to cast their votes this year. Because our votes are how we choose the representation we deserve,” she wrote on X.


The lead respondent, Virginia state Sen. Ryan McDougle, a Republican, who is also legislative commissioner for the Virginia Redistricting Commission hailed the new ruling. “The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed what we always knew: you cannot violate the Constitution to change the Constitution,” the state lawmaker wrote on X.

The Virginia battle was part of a nationwide saga that started last year, when Texas Republicans redrew their congressional map to gain seats, straying from what had been a fairly (but not thoroughly) universal norm that saw states refrain from redistricting that wasn’t driven by once-a-decade census results. Following the lead of California Democrats who undertook their own maneuvers to offset the Texas map, the Virginia leftists who gained full control of state government in 2025 responded with a constitutional amendment allowing the General Assembly to temporarily redraw congressional districts outside the normal 10-year cycle — specifically to “restore fairness” if other states gerrymandered (bases on the convoluted implication that varied wrongs against the citizenry of multiple states can add up to a national right).

Despite the implosion of the Virginia Democrats’ scheme, and the view that the net result of the redistricting war will flip seats to the GOP column, prediction-market participants lean heavily toward Democrats wresting control of the House from Republicans, who currently have a 217-212 edge over the Democrats. (One representative is an independent and there are five vacant seats owing to deaths and resignations.)

Read more …

It was mostly a Dem game in the past.

Republican Lead In Redistricting Race is About To Get Bigger (Ben Whedon)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais saw the justices narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and disallow race-based congressional districts. With the dust on redistricting mostly settled, Republicans appear poised for a double-digit swing of House seats in their favor in the 2026 midterms, at least if all goes according to plan. The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais saw the justices narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and disallow race-based congressional districts. The move triggered map redraws across the South and is expected to result in more than a dozen seats moving toward the GOP, at least in time for 2028.


Democratic countermeasures, meanwhile, have hit a judicial brick wall, with the Virginia Supreme Court striking down that state’s ambitious redraw, saving four Republican seats. The U.S. Supreme Court refused Friday to intervene, leaving Democrats out of legal options. The collective shifts are poised to move the needle rightward and put the House in play for November, potentially handing the White House an opportunity to defy historical trends and retain control of Congress. Here’s a look at where the midterm situation stands:


Louisiana
The state’s maps have been the subject of legal scrutiny for years, leading to a challenge that culminated in the recent Supreme Court decision. Gov. Jeff Landry, R-La., has suspended elections in the meantime to allow the legislature to implement a new slate. The state Senate passed a redraw earlier this week with five Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning seat, though the House has yet to approve it.

South Carolina
Several Republican state senators joined with Democrats to vote down a redistricting plan that would have eliminated the state’s sole Democratic-leaning congressional district, which longtime Rep. Jim Clyburn represents. The measure needed a two-thirds majority to pass. GOP Gov. Henry McMaster subsequently called a special session of the legislature to reconsider the matter. At most, the state lawmakers could add a single Republican-leaning district to the state’s delegation. South Carolina now sends six Republicans and one Democrat to the lower chamber.

Alabama
Lawmakers appear poised to approve a slate of House maps that would eliminate one of the state’s two Democratic-leaning districts. GOP Gov. Kay Ivey called the legislature into special session for the redraw, despite initially indicating that she would not do so. The proposed redraw stopped shy of the clean Republican sweep that activists sought, though a later redraw could result in that outcome. Though Republicans have yet to fully approve the new slate, Ivey has also called special primaries for the districts she expects will be affected.

Mississippi
GOP Gov. Tate Reeves appeared this week to pour cold water on the prospect of the state redrawing its maps in time for the 2026 midterms, saying repeatedly that he expected the legislature to redraw the maps sometime “between now and 2027.” Prior to the Supreme Court ruling in Callais, he had called a special session of the legislature to consider redistricting, but he canceled it this week. Mississippi currently has three Republicans in Congress and one Democrat. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., currently represents a district that includes much of the Mississippi River delta and a large portion of the state’s black population.

Georgia
Gov. Brian Kemp has called a special session of the legislature, though he expects the state will only change its maps in time for 2028 and therefore not impact control of the GOP-controlled House in November. Georgia boasts 14 House seats, five of which are under Democratic control. Depending on the redraw, the state could likely see a swing of two seats toward the GOP in the long term.

Tennessee
State lawmakers successfully passed a new set of maps this month that eliminated the last Democratic-leaning district, which was centered on Memphis. Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen on Friday announced an end to his reelection campaign, citing the redraw and the changes to his district.

Texas
The Texas redraw ostensibly kicked off the redistricting fight and represented the single-largest gain for Republicans, with as many as five seats shifting toward the GOP as a result. With the court challenges to the new map largely settled, the GOP is expected to make those gains in the Lone Star state in November.

Florida
Florida passed a redrawn House map within days of the Callais ruling, shifting its 20-GOP and eight-Democrat-seat lineup to 24 GOP and four Democrats. The state has skewed heavily toward Republicans since President Donald Trump first won the battleground in 2016. It is now regarded as a reliably Red state.

Missouri
The state Supreme Court this month permitted Missouri to use its maps, which include seven Republican districts and one Democratic seat. State lawmakers managed to eliminate a second Democratic seat with the redraw.

North Carolina
North Carolina lawmakers approved a revised set of maps in late 2025 that netted Republicans one seat in their delegation. Democrat Gov. Josh Stein did not have the authority to veto the legislation. In the 1990s, Republicans struck a deal with Democrats that exempted redistricting from the governor’s authority, Politico reported.

Ohio
In October 2025, the state’s redistricting commission approved a redraw in which Republicans gain an edge in 12 districts, while Democrats led in three. Republicans now have 10 seats and are expected to gain up to two in 2026 as a result of the redraw, according to the Ohio Capital Journal.

Virginia
The state Supreme Court struck down a redistricting referendum that would have seen the state shift from six Democrats and five Republicans, to 10 Democrats and one Republican. The court found that the process for advancing the referendum violated the state constitution, without ruling on the maps themselves. Though Democrats appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, opponents of the redraw were confident the Supreme Court would not take the case. Speaking on the “Just the News, No Noise” television show this week, former GOP Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli opined that the justices would speedily knock it down.

“I think the chief justice has really just asked for briefs as a courtesy. This is going nowhere,” he said. “They have no jurisdiction. And I don’t think you will even see. I don’t think you will literally get a word out of a single justice. I think it will just be summarily rejected with no comment or anything else.”He was proven right on Friday evening, when the Supreme Court declined to hear the matter.

Utah
Utah’s maps became the subject of legal scrutiny at the state level, resulting in a court order that created a Democratic-leaning district in the otherwise, reliably Republican state. Though state lawmakers have explored revisions, including a statewide referendum, to their own laws to allow for eliminating the new district, it is likely that Democrats will secure a pickup in November.

California
State Democrats reacted furiously to Texas’s redraw and organized a statewide referendum to change their congressional maps with the aim of countering Texas. The referendum was successful and Democrats are expected to gain a total of five seats from redistricting, representing their single largest gain this cycle.

The bottom line
Republicans have already approved maps accounting for a gain of 14 seats over the 2024 maps. And three states in the South may each add one in the near future. With Democrats gaining six from California and Utah, the GOP appears poised for a net swing of at least eight but as high as 11, which could prove decisive to holding the House.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/2055337924527624296?s=20 https://twitter.com/JoshHall2024/status/2055428011638575195?s=20

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Apr 162026
 


Thomas Cole The Course of Empire – Desolation 1836


Why Is Trump Making The Global Energy Crisis Worse? (RT)
US Says Iranian Trade Through Strait Of Hormuz Fully Halted (RT)
Trump’s Blockade Is Breaking Iran And European Elites Are Angry (Alt-M)
10,000 Troops: CENTCOM Update on US Blockade of the Strait of Hormuz (Salgado)
Vance Says President Trump Wants To Make ‘Grand Bargain’ With Iran (JTN)
Bessent Delivers Another Powerful Blow to Iran (Nick Arama)
Why Netanyahu Won’t Let The Middle East Have Peace Any Time Soon (Sadygzade)
The Chinese Try Pussyfooting at the Hormuz Strait (Helmer)
Europe Drafts Plan To Free Up Hormuz Without ‘Belligerent’ Parties (ZH)
Dershowitz: Trump Should Move to Expunge 2019 Impeachment (Salgado)
The Two People DNI Gabbard Issued Criminal Referrals For (Matt Vespa)
Gabbard Sends Criminal Referrals For 2019 Trump Impeachment Whistleblower (ZH)
New Intel Watchdog Launches Review Of Past Whistleblower Complaints (JTN)
Merz Wants Ukrainian Men In Germany Sent To The Front (RT)
US Prosecutors Make Surprise Visit To Fed HQ Renovation Project (ZH)
April 15 Reminds Us of How Unfree We Are (Paul Craig Roberts)

 


 

https://twitter.com/toxiccowboy1/status/2044207743020462437?s=20 https://twitter.com/Real_RobN/status/2044114932002967665?s=20

 


 

“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith… were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

-Winston Churchill, 1899

 


 


The US hardly has a energy crisis.

Why Is Trump Making The Global Energy Crisis Worse? (RT)

The US has tightened its grip on energy exports from the Persian Gulf with a new naval blockade on Iranian supplies, risking fresh shocks to already fragile global markets. The move appears intended to increase pressure on Tehran following unsuccessful efforts to secure a diplomatic off-ramp after the US-Israeli bombing campaign stalled. However, it has left American allies uncertain and drawn a pointed response from China, which has issued veiled warnings regarding US naval activity.


Why is the US blocking shipping from the Middle East?
US Central Command announced a blockade targeting vessels traveling to and from Iranian ports in both the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, effective Monday. The restrictions, it said, “will be enforced impartially against vessels of all nations,” though further operational details remain unclear. President Donald Trump described the measure as an effort to stop “any and all ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz” — the vital corridor linking the two bodies of water and a cornerstone of global energy trade.


Iran had retaliated to the US-Israeli strikes in late February by effectively restricting transit through the strait, blocking shipments tied to what it considers “unfriendly” nations, imposing tolls on vessels from “neutral” countries, and allowing free passage for “friendly” ones. While US officials accused Tehran of violating freedom of navigation, Trump suggested Washington could impose its own tolling system. Earlier in the conflict, US sanctions on Iranian oil had been relaxed to cushion global markets. The new blockade reverses that approach, reinforcing economic warfare on Iran while further undercutting supply for import-dependent economies.

What does Iran seek by blocking the Strait of Hormuz?
Tehran’s broader war strategy combines resilience under bombing with escalating economic costs for the US and its allies. In addition to restricting maritime traffic, Iranian forces have targeted American military bases in Arab states and key energy infrastructure, including refineries, gas liquification facilities, and a Saudi pipeline enabling crude exports to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s payment system is designed to weaken US financial leverage, demanding settlement in yuan or cryptocurrencies. Iran, Russia, and other sanctioned states have been building infrastructure to circumvent Western-controlled financial channels for many years. Tehran views continued control of Hormuz as a way to compensate for damages inflicted on Iran.

The approach has had some impact. Last week, Trump announced a ceasefire and a willingness to pursue negotiations aligned with elements of Tehran’s proposed framework for ending the conflict. However, indirect talks hosted by Pakistan on the weekend did not produce a breakthrough. As US Vice President J.D. Vance put it: “What we have given here is a ceasefire. We stopped bombing the country. What we expect the Iranians to give up is a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.”

Read more …

“A blockade of Iranian ports has been fully implemented..”

US Says Iranian Trade Through Strait Of Hormuz Fully Halted (RT)

American warships have effectively blocked Iranian trade through the Strait of Hormuz, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) has said. “A blockade of Iranian ports has been fully implemented as US forces maintain maritime superiority in the Middle East,” CENTCOM Commander Admiral Brad Cooper said in a statement on Tuesday evening. “In less than 36 hours since the blockade was implemented, US forces have completely halted economic trade going into and out of Iran by sea,” Cooper added.


The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), citing two unnamed US officials, reported earlier that more than 20 commercial vessels, including tankers, had passed through the strait over the past 24 hours. According to AFP, at least two vessels sanctioned by the US sailed through Hormuz on Monday: the Iranian-flagged container carrier Kashan and the Comoros-flagged tanker Elpis. The WSJ also reported that the US has intercepted eight tankers since the start of the blockade on Monday morning.

US President Donald Trump announced the blockade of the vital waterway on Sunday after Pakistani-mediated talks failed to produce a peace deal with Iran. Trump had previously failed to rally European NATO members to help secure Hormuz, which Iran had closed to “enemy ships” in response to the US-Israeli bombing campaign launched on February 28. Iran has since demanded recognition of its “sovereignty” over the waterway and the right to impose tolls. On April 8, the US and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire, raising cautious optimism for an end to the conflict, which has disrupted global trade and driven up energy prices. However, both sides have since accused each other of putting forward unacceptable terms.

Read more …

(I think every action the Trump Administration has taken so far from Venezuela to Iran has largely been designed to contain China)

Trump’s Blockade Is Breaking Iran And European Elites Are Angry (Alt-M)

In March I published an article titled “Global Energy Crisis Or Iranian Surrender In Five Weeks?” in which I outlined the “worst case” and “best case” scenarios for the war in Iran. In my best case scenario I argued in favor of a specific plan to end the conflict quickly: A US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, flipping the tables on Iran by blocking or seizing any oil tankers or gas tankers which exit Iranian ports. Two weeks later, the Trump Administration has implemented this exact strategy.


The effectiveness of the blockade is already apparent; the propaganda bots on social media are scrambling to find a narrative to counter it, but they are failing. Why? Because Iran already tried to lock down the strait (which is an international waterway), and any government cheering (or secretly cheering) for Iran’s actions is now unable to make a rational argument against the US doing the same thing to Iran. As I noted in March: “We constantly hear about international exposure to the Hormuz shutdown, but the media rarely mentions that Iran is the MOST exposed economy of all. For now, Iranian oil ships continue to pass through the strait and these vessels are Iran’s economic lifeline. Strategic estimates suggest that without the steady passage of these oil tankers, the Iranian economy would completely collapse within five weeks…”

I then summarized what I believed was the simplest solution to end the war: “Iranian cargo ships can be targeted for seizure by a US blockade of the Persian Gulf well away from the narrow waters of the Hormuz. The ships could be destroyed, but I suspect the Department of Defense will try to avoid oil spills and ecological disasters. Instead, the best option is to capture Iran’s tankers and then redirect the oil to countries in danger of shortages. Iran has the option of shutting off GPS tracking for their vessels (shadow fleet), but this would not help them maneuver past a comprehensive US blockade. In other words, I argue that the US could turn the tables on Iran and use their reliance on the Hormuz against them.

With Iran’s economy in shambles, they will no longer be able to purchase missiles or drones for resupply from Russia and China. They won’t be able to pay for logistic resources for their military and they won’t be able to contain public unrest. The Iranians would be forced to negotiate and the war would be over quickly with minimal risk to US troops.” For now, the US is not seizing Iran’s tankers and is merely sending them back to where they came from. However, it would seem that the Trump Administration and their military advisers have come to the same basic conclusions I did.

For years I have expressed my concerns about a potential conflict in Iran, largely because of the precarious global economic risks associated with mass energy shortages caused by a closure of the Hormuz, which transits around 25% of the world’s energy exports. That said, I do not care about “picking sides” when it comes to Israel or Iran. This debate is irrelevant and designed, I think, to divide US conservatives over ancient tribal vendettas that do not involve us. I don’t care about the Israeli government or “Zionism” and I certainly don’t care what happens to the theocratic and tyrannical Muslim regime in Iran. We have much more important things to think about.

What matters to me is how the US and the American people are affected by geopolitical events. There has been endless debate on what the war is really about, whether it be Iranian nukes, Israeli schemes, Saudi schemes, control of global oil markets, etc. (I think every action the Trump Administration has taken so far from Venezuela to Iran has largely been designed to contain China). In any case, a long term closure of the Hormuz will eventually result in market cascades and a stagflationary crisis. What matters now is ending the war as quickly and decisively as possible without leaving the Homuz and 25% of global energy exports under Iran’s control. After that, people can wrestle over the “moral and constitutional” quandary to their heart’s content.

Read more …

Iran says it’s not “blockadable”.

10,000 Troops: CENTCOM Update on US Blockade of the Strait of Hormuz (Salgado)

Over 10,000 American troops are involved in the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz as repeated Iranian ceasefire violations and the regime’s refusal to make a peace deal have brought the conflict to a hostile standoff. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) provided an update Tuesday morning that confirmed no vessels made it past the American blockade within the first 24 hours of its existence. During the failed ceasefire negotiations with the genocidal Iranian regime, the regime announced to the U.S. delegation that it had scattered so many mines in the strait that it didn’t know where they all were.


Furthermore, it wouldn’t or couldn’t disable them even if it could find them, and in conclusion, it would require tolls from any country that tried to send ships through. Donald Trump declared that unacceptable and immediately ordered a blockade of the strait, as Americans search for and disable the mines, and to prevent the Iranians from forcibly collecting any tolls or receiving imports.

CENTCOM’s update stated, “More than 10,000 U.S. Sailors, Marines, and Airmen along with over a dozen warships and dozens of aircraft are executing the mission to blockade ships entering and departing Iranian ports.” It proudly affirmed, “During the first 24 hours, no ships made it past the U.S. blockade and 6 merchant vessels complied with direction from U.S. forces to turn around to re-enter an Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman.”

Nor is the United States providing special treatment to the ships of one country over another, CENTCOM clarified. “The blockade is being enforced impartially against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas, including all Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. U.S. forces are supporting freedom of navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports,” the statement ended.

Any Iranian ships that attempt to attack the blockade will find themselves facing deadly consequences. Trump posted on Truth Social Monday morning, “Iran’s Navy is laying at the bottom of the sea, completely obliterated – 158 ships. What we have not hit are their small number of, what they call, ‘fast attack ships,’ because we did not consider them much of a threat.”

Unfortunately, it appears that the attack ships could be more of a consideration than the Americans originally believed. “Warning: If any of these ships come anywhere close to our BLOCKADE, they will be immediately ELIMINATED, using the same system of kill that we use against the drug dealers on boats at Sea,” Trump threatened. The types of American ships and aircraft involved in the blockade include an aircraft carrier, an amphibious assault ship, both land- and sea-based aircraft, unmanned aircraft, guided missile destroyers, and reconnaissance aircraft, according to the update from CENTCOM. Please pray for all Americans involved.

Read more …

“..if you guys commit to not having a nuclear weapon, we are going to make Iran thrive..”

Vance Says President Trump Wants To Make ‘Grand Bargain’ With Iran (JTN)

Vice President JD Vance told Americans in Georgia Tuesday night that President Donald Trump wants to make a “grand bargain” with Iran that promises economic success to the Middle Eastern country. The vice president said a deal the United States offered Iran during peace negotiations in Pakistan over the weekend could normalize economic ties between the two countries if they commit to not having a nuclear weapon. “He doesn’t want to make, like, a small deal. He wants to make the grand bargain,” Vance said at a Turning Point USA event.


“The reason why the deal is not yet done is because the president wants a deal where Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon, Iran is not state-sponsoring terrorism, but also, the people of Iran can thrive, prosper and join the world economy.” “He’s saying if you guys commit to not having a nuclear weapon, we are going to make Iran thrive, we’re going to make it economically prosperous, and we’re going to invite the Iranian people into the world economy,” Vance continued. “That’s the kind of Trumpian grand bargain that the president has put on the table.”

Vance also urged young voters at the University of Georgia not to be disillusioned over American foreign policy because the administration has other successes under its belt, including securing the southern border. “I’m not saying you have to agree with me on every issue,” Vance said. “What I’m saying is, don’t get disengaged because you disagree with the ad ministration on one topic, get more involved, make your voice heard even more.”

Read more …

Freeze their funds.

Bessent Delivers Another Powerful Blow to Iran (Nick Arama)

President Donald Trump is beginning to turn the screws on the Iranian regime. He’s blockaded any shipments coming in or out of their ports while letting other ships through. That’s going to put their economy, which was already heading into the dumper, on potential life support. It’s going to hit the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) right where they live. If they don’t find their way out of that situation, it’s not sustainable. It will either force them back to the table for a deal, or it’s going to put even more pressure on the regime.


Additionally, after Iran tried to create chaos and control the Strait of Hormuz, tankers coming to the U.S. Gulf coast oil then increased, making us more of an alternative. But if that wasn’t enough, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had another shoe to drop on them. Bessent announced that, in addition to what they had already done with their “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran since last year, the Trump administration was also launching “Operation Economic Fury,” and making use of what might prove to be a “fatal mistake” by the regime to bomb their Gulf neighbors.

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2044472932106141852

Bessent explained that the neighbors were now being “much more transparent in terms of the funds” or willing to “do a deeper dive in investigating the funds that are held within their banking systems” from the Iranian regime. “So, we have pushed out to them the request that we want to freeze more funds of the leadership of the IRGC, and any members of Iranian leadership.” If Iran is expecting any money back from the oil sales they’ve made, they may be out of luck there as well. “The other thing that we have done is we have told companies, we have told countries that if you are buying Iranian oil, that if Iranian money is sitting in your banks, we are now willing to apply secondary sanctions, which is a very stern measure.”

“The Iranians should know that this is going to be the financial equivalent of what we saw in the kinetic activities.” Bessent said they would also be going after the funding of the terror proxies. Under @POTUS’ leadership, Treasury will continue to cut off Iran’s illicit smuggling and terror proxy networks. Financial institutions should be on notice that Treasury will leverage all tools and authorities, including secondary sanctions, against those that continue to support Tehran’s terrorist activities. Folks in Saudi Arabia, which is not keen on being bombed, appreciated what Bessent had to say.

https://twitter.com/majeed66224499/status/2044491186069504378

You have to think the Iranian leaders are tearing their hair out at this point, trying to figure out what to do.

Read more …

Territory.

Why Netanyahu Won’t Let The Middle East Have Peace Any Time Soon (Sadygzade)

Israel’s war in Lebanon has entered a stage in which claims of supposedly precise strikes on military infrastructure can no longer be taken seriously. The scale of the operations, the depth of the advance in the south, the destruction of bridges and residential neighborhoods, the massive strikes on Beirut, and the steady expansion of the so-called buffer zone all show that this is not merely a tactical effort to contain Hezbollah. It is an attempt to reshape the military and political reality of southern Lebanon for years to come. Israel describes this as the creation of a security belt up to the Litani River. In the language of the region, however, it reads differently. It is a course toward long term control of territory, the depopulation of the border strip, and the creation of facts on the ground that will be extremely difficult to reverse.


Formally, the new phase of the war began on March 2, when Hezbollah opened fire on Israel after American and Israeli strikes on Iran and the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israel responded with a broad air campaign against Lebanon and then expanded its ground operations in the south. At that point, the government of Nawaf Salam tried to distance itself from Hezbollah’s decision and took the unprecedented step of banning the movement’s military activity outside state institutions, demanding that its weapons be handed over to the state. This was an important sign of a shifting balance within Lebanon itself. Hezbollah can no longer act as though its armed autonomy is automatically accepted by the entire state. Yet the move also revealed the other side of the crisis. Beirut is exerting political pressure on Hezbollah, but it has neither the resources nor the internal consensus to disarm it quickly without risking a deeper internal fracture.

A land grab by any other name
From a military point of view, Israel rapidly moved far beyond the boundaries of retaliatory strikes. By late March, Defense Minister Israel Katz had openly declared the intention to hold southern Lebanon up to the Litani as a security zone, which means nearly a tenth of Lebanese territory. This was followed by strikes on bridges, the destruction of homes in border villages, and evacuation orders for residents south of the river. Soon afterward, Israel was already constructing new fortifications and destroying increasingly empty villages, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was openly speaking of expanding the security strip. The Israeli military machine was no longer concealing the long-term nature of the operation. This was no raid. It was a project of territorial transformation under the military pretext of combating Hezbollah.

This is where the central political question emerges. For the Israeli right, southern Lebanon is increasingly becoming an ideologically charged space. The bluntest statement came from Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who said in late March that Israel’s new border should run along the Litani – the clearest call yet by a senior Israeli official for the seizure of Lebanese territory. True, at the current moment there is no officially approved government program for the construction of Jewish settlements in southern Lebanon in a formal cabinet document. Yet when a senior minister speaks of changing the border, while the army simultaneously burns out the border zone, destroys homes, and prepares for prolonged control of the territory, the analytical conclusion is already clear. This is occupation, from which the idea of future settlement expansion follows almost naturally. For the far right in Israel, that appears to be a desired outcome. The stated pretext is the struggle against Hezbollah. The real content is the consolidation of a new coercive order on the ground.

Read more …

“‘So they’re not going to be able to get their oil. They can get oil. Not Iranian oil,’ Bessent said, adding that China had been buying more than 90% of Iranian oil and it constituted about 8% of their annual purchases.”

The Chinese Try Pussyfooting at the Hormuz Strait (Helmer)

Between saying something if you are a Chinese admiral and Defense Minister and meaning something if you are a Politburo member and Foreign Minister, there is a pussyfooting difference. If you are the US Treasury Secretary and you tell the Chinese what you mean, that’s different. And then if you are the President of China, these differences of meaning might be interpreted as “the law of the jungle”. Might be is a conditional verb. Sometimes in grammar it connects the subject of sentences with the object. Sometimes in politics it doesn’t.


And so, on or about Monday, April 13, Dong Jun (lead image, 2nd left), China’s Minister of Defense, said: “We are committed for peace & stability in the world. We are monitoring the situation in the Middle East. Our ships are moving in and out of the waters of Strait of Hormuz. We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honour them and expect others not to meddle in our affairs. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and it is open for us.”

Where Dong said this, when, and in front of whom, were unclear in the press reports which, unusually, were not official state Chinese media or commercial media like the South China Morning Post. China experts noticed that the style of the remarks in Chinese was “very different from the official Chinese language style.” This isn’t necessarily a disqualifier. In Russian practice, sensitive official thinking can often be leaked through unofficial, even obscure sources, in part to test what happens in response.

Dong’s first two sentences were official boilerplate and obvious. The third sentence refers to the fact that in the first month of the US-Israeli war against Iran, an estimated 18 Chinese vessels transited the Strait – with Iranian permission and following a territorial route dictated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). On Monday, if and when Dong was speaking, a Chinese-owned tanker moved through the Strait. This was the Rich Starry which had loaded 250,000 barrels of methanol at the Emirati port of Hamriyah. The tanker is owned by Shanghai Xuanrun Shipping Co Ltd. but sanctioned by the US because it has been used to transport Iranian crude.

Dong’s fourth sentence is also boilerplate. There are many trade and energy agreements between China and Iran; the most important of them is the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (2021–2046), signed in March 2021. It is the Defense Minister’s fifth and sixth sentences which have drawn immediate and serious attention, especially in Teheran and Moscow, where they are interpreted as the first explicit Chinese declaration of support for Iran’s military control of the Strait and the first explicit Chinese warning to reject President Donald Trump’s naval blockade of the Strait which had begun on Monday.

Combined with the exit of the Rich Starry and another tanker, the US-sanctioned Elpis, which had loaded a cargo of Iranian methanol at Bushehr, Dong’s sentences appeared to signal that Beijing had decided to run Trump’s gauntlet and challenge the US Navy blockade. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent replied that “the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would ensure that no Chinese ships or others would be allowed to pass. ‘So they’re not going to be able to get their oil. They can get oil. Not Iranian oil,’ Bessent said, adding that China had been buying more than 90% of Iranian oil and it constituted about 8% of their annual purchases.”

As Bessent spoke, several hours after Dong’s speech and the tanker movements, both the speech and the ship courses were reversed. The Chinese Defense Ministry tweeted an official claim that the reports were “fake news” and “entirely fabricated.” The maritime tracking media reported the Rich Starry had stopped in the Gulf of Oman and then made a U-turn towards the Strait. The Elpis was reported to have stopped off the Iranian oil terminal port of Kooh Mobarak, which is located outside and east of the Strait, in the Gulf of Oman.

So now, all things said, what have the Chinese done?

Read more …

Isn’t Iran one of the belligerent parties?

Europe Drafts Plan To Free Up Hormuz Without ‘Belligerent’ Parties (ZH)

This is quite the ambitious headline revealing the latest ‘plan’ for Hormuz to come out of Europe, as it sits on the sidelines watching the US get potentially bogged down in the region following a month of heavy airstrikes on Iran: Europe drafts postwar plan to free up Strait of Hormuz without US, WSJ reports. This is apparently a plan for after the main crisis is over, amid the strait still being blockaded (with the each warring side insisting it is they in control of the strategic chokepoint waterway). It seems the main idea is to eventually take the United States out of the equation, allowing only for the ‘neutral’ countries to free up and clean the Hormuz Strait.


But the whole thing is very strange – on the one hand, it purports to keep one of the key belligerents, namely the United States, at bay – while on the other envisioning European/NATO military ships engaged in freedom navigation operations, including some mine-clearing. For example, there is this line from the Journal report: “French President Emmanuel Macron said Tuesday the plan is for an international defensive mission that doesn’t include the ‘belligerent’ parties, meaning the US, Israel and Iran. European diplomats familiar with the plan say European ships wouldn’t be under American command.”

to a Newsquawk summary of the WSJ main highlights:
—European countries are putting together a plan for a broad coalition of countries to help free up shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, including sending mine-clearing and other military vessels. But the plan would only come after the war and may exclude the US.
—Some differences must still be worked: French diplomats think that any US involvement in the operation would make it less palatable to Tehran, while British officials worry that not including the Americans will anger Trump and limit the operation’s scope.
—The plan has three broad aims:

1) put logistics in place to ensure the hundreds of ships currently stuck in the strait can leave.
2) Employ a major demining operation to clear the way for a far larger number of ships to use a broader part of the strait.
3) Removing Iranian mines in Hormuz is crucial to getting ships going again.

The reality is that this supposed plan brings things back full circle to problem #1… as it’s not as if either Iran, or the United States, will simply shrug and cede control so that a European military coalition can step in and take over. Which side will ever actually agree to this? The obvious answer, at least for the time being and foreseeable future is… nobody.= And then there’s the question of what leverage or force will Europe employ to assert its military presence in the strait in order to keep all parties in line… some mere harsh language and strong words?

Read more …

Never tried before.

Dershowitz: Trump Should Move to Expunge 2019 Impeachment (Salgado)

After newly declassified documents showed that an inspector general wrongly pushed an unvetted accusation from a Democrat operative who lied to launch the first impeachment of Donald Trump, legal expert Alan Dershowitz said that the president has a strong case for moving to expunge that first impeachment from his record.


While Dershowitz was a Democrat himself, he defended Trump during the impeachment trial. Dershowitz went on the Just the News, No Noise TV show to suggest that Trump go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Roberts to request a reversal of the impeachment. The defense team never got to confront the accuser with evidence that was exculpatory for the president, and now we have these new revelations to confirm how bogus the whole impeachment was.

Referring to an impeachment reversal, Dershowitz admitted, “It’s never been done. I don’t see any reason why it couldn’t be done. Impeachment is a quasi-judicial procedure, whether you have to go back to Congress and ask them to expunge it or go to the courts.”

Referring to the new exposure of the key source for the accusations, who met with top Democrat Adam Schiff before filing his complaint, Dershowitz added, “But I have to tell you one thing, history will expunge it already based on your work, because what you’ve done is you’ve created so much doubt about the credibility of the main accuser that it’s hard for anybody to sit back now and say that was a just, a just impeachment, but I don’t know that there’s going to be any remedy. Maybe we should try to create one.”

RealClearInvestigations named the “whistleblower” in question as intel analyst Eric Ciaramella. He was a registered Democrat, he met with Schiff before submitting his complaint, and he would not reveal any credible contacts, yet Inspector General Michael Atkinson didn’t even question, let alone rigorously assess, either the honesty or motivations of this “whistleblower.”

In fact, Atkinson did not even follow standard inspector general procedures, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard revealed. Atkinson conducted interviews with four individuals only: “the Whistleblower, the Whistleblower’s friend who was a co-author of the January 2017 Russia Hoax Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and close colleague of disgraced former FBI Agent Peter Strzok, and two character references who had zero firsthand knowledge of the July 2019 phone call.” Yet Atkinson exceeded his statutory jurisdiction based just on all that blatantly biased hearsay.

Ciaramella later admitted that all of his accusations were based on second- and third-hand accounts rather than anything he himself knew, making the impeachment basis even more preposterous, Just the News reported. “I do not have direct knowledge of private comments or communications by the President,” the whistleblower confessed. Gabbard accused, “Deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative that was used by Congress to usurp the will of the American people and impeach the duly-elected President of the United States.”

Read more …

Tulsi has turned out to be a force of nature.

The Two People DNI Gabbard Issued Criminal Referrals For (Matt Vespa)

It was a major document release this week: the files that were not given to President Trump’s lawyers during the 2019 impeachment effort were revealed by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. One could argue that the documents, which were hidden until now, were textbook exculpatory evidence. The Ukraine whistleblower, who sparked the quid pro quo controversy, had no evidence to back his claims, admitted to working closely with then-Vice President Joe Biden, was a registered Democrat, and his allegations were based on poor spycraft.


Even his colleagues acknowledged this was a weak complaint, and one of them contributed to the similarly flawed, Obama-ordered 2017 Intelligence Community Estimate, which endorsed the collusion hoax. Gabbard sent criminal referrals for the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, and former intelligence community inspector general Michael Atkinson (via Fox News):

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2044539944333426893

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department for the whistleblower whose complaint helped trigger President Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment and for the former intelligence community inspector general who notified Congress of the allegations, Fox News Digital has learned. “I want to refer information that may constitute possible criminal activity in violation of federal criminal law committed by one or more former employees of the intelligence community,” ODNI’s general counsel wrote in the referral to the Justice Department.Fox News Digital on Wednesday reviewed the referrals ODNI sent to the Justice Department. v”The possible criminal activity concerns the circumstances described in the following congressional briefings: Discussion with Intelligence Community Inspector General, House Permanent Select Comm. on Intel., 116th Cong. (2019); Briefing by the Intelligence Community Inspector General, House Permanent Select Comm. on Intel., 116th Cong. (2019),” it continued. The referrals come after DNI Tulsi Gabbard released documents earlier this week exposing what was described as a “coordinated effort” by elements within the intelligence community—including then-Inspector General Michael Atkinson, to “manufacture a conspiracy” that was used as the basis to impeach Trump in 2019.

Lock ‘em up. Someone must go to jail over this. This wasn’t some lost paperwork; it was a deliberate attempt to unseat a duly elected president. It was a coup. For all their smarts and resources, the Deep State has continuously failed to usurp Trump.

Read more …

When she took the job, I don’t think Tulsi was a Trump ally. Perhaps she is now.

Gabbard Sends Criminal Referrals For 2019 Trump Impeachment Whistleblower (ZH)

On Monday, DNI Tulsi Gabbard and the House Intelligence Committee released declassified transcripts revealing that the whistleblower whose complaint about Trump and Zelensky’s ‘perfect call’ as an extreme parisan who had a “prior professional relationship with one of the Democratic Presidential candidates,” and despite those facts, former-Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Michael Atkinson claimed “I did not find the complainant (whistleblower) was biased.”


Well, tonight they’re the recipients of two criminal referrals. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesady referred who is believed to be former CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella – along with the former intelligence community inspector general who fast-tracked it – for potential criminal investigation, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence announced Tuesday.

The referrals to the Justice Department, first reported by Fox News and confirmed by multiple officials familiar with the matter, come days after Gabbard’s office declassified more than seven-year-old transcripts and supporting documents that Democrats and the intelligence community had kept under wraps since the fall of 2019. The newly public records raise fresh questions about the origins and handling of the complaint that accused Trump of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Ciaramella was a CIA analyst detailed to the National Security Council at the time. According to the declassified materials, he had no firsthand knowledge of Trump’s July 25, 2019, phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and instead relied on secondhand accounts from NSC colleagues. He was a registered Democrat who had previously worked on Ukraine policy under then-Vice President Biden – including traveling with him – and had pre-complaint contacts with Democratic staff on the House Intelligence Committee, including aides to then-Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the records show.

Former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who received the complaint in August 2019, is accused in the declassified files of deviating from standard procedures. He allegedly changed the whistleblower complaint form to accommodate hearsay information, ignored Justice Department guidance that the complaint did not qualify as an “urgent concern,” did not review the actual call transcript, and relied on a narrow set of interviews – including one with a witness who had co-authored the controversial 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian election interference and had ties to former FBI official Peter Strzok.

Gabbard, a Trump ally installed as DNI earlier this year, framed the declassification and referrals as long-overdue accountability. “Deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative that was used by Congress to usurp the will of the American people and impeach the duly-elected President of the United States,” Gabbard said in a statement accompanying the release. “Inspector General Atkinson failed to uphold his responsibility to the American people, putting political motivations over the truth.”

The ODNI general counsel’s referral letter, obtained by outlets covering the story, cited possible violations of federal criminal law by “one or more former employees of the intelligence community,” specifically referencing Atkinson’s 2019 congressional briefings. The declassified package – released by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence at the request of Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) following a March 24 committee vote – includes closed-door transcripts of Atkinson’s 2019 testimony before the panel. Those transcripts had been withheld from Trump’s defense team during the impeachment proceedings and from the broader public for more than seven years.

The move revives one of the most contentious chapters of Trump’s first term and comes as his second administration aggressively pursues investigations into perceived abuses by the intelligence community during the Russia investigation, the 2020 election challenges and both impeachments. Schiff, now a senator from California, and other Democrats involved in the original impeachment have not yet commented publicly on the latest developments. A spokesman for the House Intelligence Committee under Democratic control in 2019 called the declassification “a partisan stunt designed to rewrite history.”

Read more …

“..the former watchdog had “weaponized the whistle-blower process” and used his office to “manufacture a conspiracy that was used as the basis to impeach President Trump.”

New Intel Watchdog Launches Review Of Past Whistleblower Complaints (JTN)

The new chief watchdog for U.S. spy agencies has opened a review of several “urgent concern” whistle-blower complaints fielded by his predecessor after bombshell documents revealed that intelligence officials kept exculpatory evidence from President Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment proceedings and may have suppressed concerns about Chinese meddling in the 2020 election. Officials told Just the News that Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Christopher Fox, who took over the job in October, ordered the review as part of a larger effort to reform and better resource his office to handle whistle-blower complaints that can range from abuse of civil liberties and fraud to unmitigated national security threats related to terrorism and espionage.


“It also relied more on the opinions of attorneys than the objective findings of investigators” ICIG says..””The past treatment of urgent concerns as more of a legal/document review than an investigative activity left important evidence on the table,” the ICIG office said in a statement. “It also relied more on the opinions of attorneys than the objective findings of investigators. Ultimately, this process did not serve the Intelligence Community or the American people well.”

Fox’s review comes after Just the News reported Sunday that documents recently declassified by the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) showed that the ICIG office under Fox’s predecessor, Michael Atkinson, flagged concerns about the CIA analyst who launched the 2019 impeachment proceedings against Trump with Ukraine policy-related allegations but those concerns were kept classified and never made public during the congressional proceedings.

The concerns included that the accuser had the “potential for bias,” had provided false information in his initial complaint and had animus toward conservatives inside Trump’s circles, according to documents declassified by DNI Tulsi Gabbard this week. Gabbard blasted Atkinson’s work on Monday, suggesting the former watchdog had “weaponized the whistle-blower process” and used his office to “manufacture a conspiracy that was used as the basis to impeach President Trump.”

Others, including former Trump defense lawyers, the FBI and members of Congress, also sharply criticized the withholding of such evidence for six years, with famed law professor Alan Dershowitz going so far as to suggest Trump might have grounds to expunge his 2019 impeachment in the House of Representatives.

China’s hacking of voter data kept hidden by Intelligence Community
Separately, Just the News reported that the National Intelligence Council had concluded in 2020 that China had hacked or gained access to several states’ voter registration databases, but that information was suppressed from the American public, state election officials and Congress despite a whistle-blower named Christopher Porter’s complaints trying to bring attention to it.

The intelligence community ombudsman even raised concerns that U.S. spy agencies may have exhibited bias in trying to suppress word of China’s election activities. Officials told Just the News that intelligence agencies were informed recently that Fox’s office will be reviewing anew the handling of Porter’s whistle-blower complaint. Fox’s office said it can “neither confirm nor deny whistle-blower identities or details that might reveal them, or whether any specific matter is under investigation.”But it did confirm to Just the News that Fox has launched a systemic review of “urgent concern” whistle-blower complaints handled during Atkinson’s tenure.

“IC IG Fox has also directed a comprehensive review of all past urgent concern complaints to identify lessons learned, improve internal policies, and determine whether previous matters warrant additional oversight activity,” the office said. Officials said under the old regime, “urgent concern” complaints from intelligence community whistle-blowers inside 18 separate agencies were handled by the Center for Protected Disclosures, operating separately from the Investigations Division and its trained investigators.

That meant most complaints just got a cursory review during a limited 14-day period that usually included:
• An intake interview;
• Limited witness interviews;
• An initial document examination.

“After the statutorily required 14-day review period, IC OIG did not historically continue any investigative activity. Instead, a memorandum reflecting the IC IG’s determination would be transmitted to the DNI and to Congress, and the case would be administratively closed (frozen in time), regardless of the national security implications,” Fox’s office said.

Congress received “only a preliminary assessment based on an incomplete evidentiary record” ICIG says
Fox’s office said the 2019 impeachment case revealed in the newly declassified documents that “Congress received only a preliminary assessment based on an incomplete evidentiary record.”In January, Fox launched what he called internally an “IC OIG 2.0” reorganization that consolidated six divisions into four offices, allowing a more robust and thorough “cross-disciplinary” to apply “consistent investigative rigor and objectivity to every complaint” that came in, officials said.

Read more …

Berlin will coordinate the repatriation of military-age males with Kiev, the German chancellor has said ..”

They fled there to escape that… More Merkel mayhem.

Merz Wants Ukrainian Men In Germany Sent To The Front (RT)

Berlin and Kiev will coordinate efforts to return military-age Ukrainian men residing in Germany to their home country, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has announced following a meeting with Vladimir Zelensky. As Ukrainian forces suffer mounting losses in the conflict with Russia and the pool of willing recruits continues to shrink, draft enforcement squads have increasingly turned to violent methods to fill the ranks in recent months. Men are being snatched off the streets, from workplaces and residential areas, as evidenced by hundreds of videos circulating online.


The heavy-handed tactics employed by Ukrainian press gangs have led to a rise in violent confrontations with unwilling recruits, their families, and passersby, with multiple recruits and draft enforcement officers being injured or even killed. Speaking at a joint press conference with Zelensky in Berlin on Tuesday, Merz reiterated the German government’s “support for Ukraine’s efforts to reduce the number of Ukrainian men of military age leaving [their home] country.” According to the German chancellor, “this is essential to ensuring Ukraine’s defense capabilities, social cohesion, and reconstruction.”

“We need rapid, tangible progress here, also in the interest of both sides,” he stressed. Zelensky concurred that the issue “must be addressed,” adding that “of course, our armed forces would want these people to return to Ukraine.” In January, Merz similarly called on Ukraine to create conditions that would encourage its young men to remain in the country rather than flee to Western Europe. Following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Germany became the top destination for Ukrainian migrants in the EU, taking in more than a million people, according to the Federal Statistical Office.

Some Ukrainian officials have acknowledged escalating public discontent with the forced mobilization campaign. According to Vadim Ivchenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament’s national security committee, only around 8-10% of new personnel entering the armed forces are willing recruits. Moscow has repeatedly accused Kiev’s Western backers of waging a proxy war against Russia “to the last Ukrainian.”

Read more …

“More recently, he said the lead contractor “is probably one of the richest men in the country right now.”

US Prosecutors Make Surprise Visit To Fed HQ Renovation Project (ZH)

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday made a surprise visit to the Federal Reserve headquarters building that’s undergoing a $2.5 billion renovation, as they continue to investigate whether Fed Chair Jerome Powell lied to Congress about the cost and scope of the project. Construction workers told the prosecutors they couldn’t come on the site without prior authorization, the Wall Street Journal reported. Instead, they were referred to the Fed’s lawyers to coordinate a return visit.


The provocative move is the latest chapter in a months-long legal drama over the enormously expensive renovation of two Fed office buildings built in the 1930s, and whether Powell made false statements about the project in a congressional hearing last June. Specifically, Powell disputed media reports and accusations from administration officials and congressional Republicans that the project had extravagant design features, such as a VIP dining room, premium marble, water features and a rooftop terrace garden.

Last year, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought reported that the $2.5 billion cost was $700 million over budget. President Trump, who has repeatedly criticized Powell for not pushing interest even lower than they are, was quick to condemn the Fed director for the steep price of the project. “When you spend $2.5 billion on, really, a renovation, I think it’s really disgraceful,” he said last year. More recently, he said the lead contractor “is probably one of the richest men in the country right now.”

The ongoing drama had a moment of comic relief in July, when Trump joined Powell in touring the construction site with reporters tagging along: Last month, US District Judge James Boasberg threw out two subpoenas that federal prosecutors had issued to the Fed. “There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will,” wrote Boasberg, an Obama appointee. Tuesday’s surprise visit to the construction zone signals the DOJ’s dedication to chasing the case.

“Any construction project that has cost overruns of almost 80 percent over the original construction budget deserves some serious review,” US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro told the Journal on Tuesday. “And these people are in charge of monetary policy in the United States?” Pirro, a long-time Trump ally, gave a green light to the investigation in November.

Powell’s term as chair will expire on May 15, though his underlying seat on the Fed’s Board of Governors doesn’t end until 2028. In January, Trump nominated Kevin Warsh to replace him, but his Senate confirmation is being held up by Republican North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, who said he won’t vote to advance Warsh’s nomination until the DOJ investigation of Powell and the Fed is complete. Powell has said he’ll stay on as chair until his successor is confirmed. Fed chairs usually give up their Board of Governors seat after leaving the top job, but Powell has said he will make a decision on that “based on what I think is best for our institution and the people we serve.”

Read more …

“Serfs received protection for their taxes. Slaves received housing, food, and medical care. Post 1913 Americans receive wars.”:

April 15 Reminds Us of How Unfree We Are (Paul Craig Roberts)

Citizens of democracies think of themselves as free. This belief reflects their indoctrination, not the facts. Historically, the definition of a free person is a person who owns his own labor. A serf and a slave did not own their own labor, and neither does a citizen of a Western democracy today. Today, April 15, is a good reminder of that fact.


Once upon a time April 15 was the deadline for paying one’s taxes for the prior year. This imposed a burden on taxpayers not to spend all of the prior’s year income, but to set aside the share of their earnings that belonged to government, just as serfs had to set aside the proportion of their labor that belonged to feudal lords, the government of that time. Initially, only the federal government owned part of an American citizens income, but then states followed as did the city of New York. Americans who pay federal, state, and city income taxes are actually taxed higher than Medieval serfs and 19th century slaves on Southern cotton plantations, which means that Americans are less free than serfs and slaves.

Today April 15 is the deadline for filing your tax return, but for most Americans the taxes have already been paid by the withholding tax on wages and salaries and by quarterly estimated tax payments by those with income from investments that are unpredictable such as stocks and bonds. The withholding tax is paid by that part of your wage or salary that you never see. The quarterly estimate is paid by the person writing a check based an an accountant’s estimate. Many Americans might be unaware that the government claims the monetary value of 30-40% of their labor. They never see the money as employers pay it directly to the government. Many Americans are overwithheld. Instead of having to pay the IRS, they receive a check from the government.

As I remember from my study as a graduate student of the medieval economy in Europe under the direction of University of California, Berkeley, Professor of Economics Henry Rosovsky, later Dean of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, the highest tax rate that could be extracted from a serf was 30%. Generally, it was lower, but 30% was the maximum, the reason being that agricultural technology in those days was so low that if serfs lost more than 30% of their labor, they could not reproduce. On 19th century plantations, such as those in the Caribbean and southern United States, agricultural technology permitted 50% of a slave’s labor to be a return to the slave’s owner on the slave’s purchase price of $63,500 in 2025 dollars.

A plantation owner with 30 slaves as field hands, blacksmiths, and carpenters had $2,000,000 in today’s money invested in his labor force. How likely is he to demoralize and alienate his labor force and give them incentives to run away by beating them with whips, raping their wives, and working them to death in harsh conditions, thus destroying his investment? The slave owner was vastly outnumbered by his slaves, many of whom were warriors captured by the black King of Dahomey in slave wars. Good relations were in the slave owner’s interest.

Yet the propaganda “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” constitutes the education of generations of Americans and the content of university Black Studies programs. Perhaps we need another Harriet Beecher Stowe to chronicle the treatment of Americans today as human property, not the property of an individual but property of the state, just as was 30% (maximum) of the serf’s labor a property of the state of that time. Unlike taxation today, which serves little, if any, of the interests of those taxed, serfs gained protection in exchange for their labor. In Europe following the collapse of the Roman Empire free men farming for their existence were subject to raids from Vikings, Saracens, Magyars. The raiders came by boat, by horse. The isolated free farmers were helpless.

A would-be strongman appeared with a deal: Supply me with your labor and I will construct a fortress and employ men-at-arms to protect you against raids. You can come to our defended walls and be safe. These protectors became the aristocrats, and the free men became the serfs. But the feudal lords kept their promises as it was in their interest to defend the people. I remember reading historical accounts of how what became the aristocracy bred large war horses that could carry armored knights and were capable of overriding the smaller horses of the Magyars who attacked Europe for a century.

A serf was tied to the land and could not be bought and sold. Medieval serfs paid their taxes in kind–in their labor–initially for protection and then as an inherited obligation. Over time, some of the serfs’ labor obligation could be converted into delivery of products of the serfs’ labor. The 19th century slave paid his tax to his owner in his labor time as a return on his owner’s investment. The difference today is that a “free” American pays his slavery in the form of a monetary payment equivalent to government’s share of the monetary earnings of his labor–not in kind in direct labor service.

As Americans pay in money and not directly in labor, the illusion of a free people is created. A “free” American is like a serf. He cannot be bought and sold, but his failure to deliver the monetary value of government’s claim to his labor is harshly punished. Most would prefer whippings to imprisonment. Until the Reagan marginal tax rate reductions, high earner incomes were taxed at 50% on wages and salaries and 70% on investment income. This put them in the slave class. The rest of Americans are in the tax position of medieval serfs. The difference is that Americans today get nothing for it except wars they do not want and masses of immigrant-invaders to support. The United States government today stands in extremely poor comparison with the feudal lords of the Medieval Era. And so do the governments of every European democracy.

Today there are no Americans alive who were not born under the income tax. All Americans alive today were born into slavery. But when I was young, there were millions of Americans who had lived most of their lives as free people. These were the last free Americans. The US income tax came into being in 1913–a deception of the citizens like everything else the US government has done, such as the wars on Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Vietnam. The first income tax rate–1%–only applied to very high incomes. The top tax rate of 7% was only for tycoons. As hardly any Americans were subject to the income tax, the Constitutional amendment allowing an income tax easily passed.

The income tax became law on the eve of World War I, a war America had no business being involved in, and the income thresholds were quickly lowered and the tax rates quickly raised. The United States dating from the Declaration of Independence is 250 years old. The US income tax is 113 years old. The US has existed for more than twice as long as the income tax.

The US never needed an income tax and does not need one now. The liberals wanted an income tax so that they could redistribute income. An income tax is not needed for the normal functions of government such as roads, bridges, social infrastructure. Modern Monetary Theory has demonstrated that government can finance these operations by creating money as the productive investments raise GDP and pay for themselves in rising output.

Welfare was the province of churches and private charities like the Salvation Army.In place of a good society, the income tax has brought us endless wars and generations of a welfare class that exists on redistributed income confiscated from working people. Serfs received protection for their taxes. Slaves received housing, food, and medical care. Post 1913 Americans receive wars.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/UnearthedHQ/status/2044093959698559308?s=20 Lynch

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Feb 102026
 
 February 10, 2026  Posted by at 11:01 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , ,  77 Responses »


Rembrandt van Rijn Abraham and the angels 1646


Who’s Next. . . What’s Next. . . ? (James Howard Kunstler)
Epstein’s Gates to Pandemonium (Jordi Pigem)
The Epstein Files and the Gap Between Suspicion and Proof (David Manney)
Western Leaders Following Zelensky Around Like ‘Nannies’ – Hungary FM (RT)
Ukraine Is Our Enemy – Orban (RT)
Zelensky Tried To Kill The Chance For Russia-Ukraine Peace, Again (Romanenko)
Russia Will Not Attack Europe Unless Struck First – Lavrov (RT)
Torture, Murder, Ethnic Cleansing. Meet Ukraine’s ‘National Heroes’ (RT)
Massive Win for Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi (CTH)
President Trump Superbowl Day Interview (CTH)
Dems Melting Down Over Voter ID As DHS Shutdown Talks Hit Wall (ZH)
Humanoid Robot Nails Perfect Backflip As Mobility Progress Accelerates (ZH)
The Myth of the American Free Press: A History – Part I of II (Wilson)
NY Times Columnist Says Vance’s Mother Should Have Sold Him (Turley)
Trump Officials Slam Venezuelan Nobel Winner As ‘Spoiler’ (RT)

 


 

https://twitter.com/DeepBlueCrypto/status/2020690315297104075?s=20 https://twitter.com/JimFergusonUK/status/2020801563950797023?s=20 https://twitter.com/iam_smx/status/2020645989661512000?s=20

 


 

 


 


The more we read about Epstein, the less it is about sex. Like that was just a sideshow. Jim Kunstler smells a rat.

“,,,why don’t the dozens of so-called “Epstein Survivors,” grown women supposedly raped and abused by celebrities years ago as children, name their abusers publicly? What’s stopping them as they grandstand around the country?

Why not one single one?

Who’s Next. . . What’s Next. . . ? (James Howard Kunstler)

It’s all backstage now. This fraught moment, the power centers locked in the coldest cold of the year, the Spanish language lessons of Bad Bunny behind us, all the real action in the battle to save the country is out of sight, moiling and churning in the deep background. Everybody’s on edge waiting for shoes to drop, praying they don’t drop on their heads. You should have seen Senator Mark Warner (D-VA; Vice-chair of the Senate Intel Committee) on Face the Nation Sunday, frothing at the mouth over Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence (DNI). He cannot believe she turned up at the Fulton County, GA, election warehouse last month, where the FBI extracted 700 boxes of ballots and other evidence for what happened there in the 2020 election.


Senator Warner doesn’t want you to find out. Senator Warner, you understand, is one of the darkest creatures slithering through the cypress knobs of the DC swamp, and his lair, the Senate Intel Committee, is a fetid backwater of seditious intrigue. Senator Warner is setting the stage for yet another hoax against the country. He’s got a “whistleblower,” ID unknown, who supposedly imputes that last spring “an individual associated with foreign intelligence” made a phone call to “a person close to President Trump” and DNI Gabbard failed to report it to his committee. DNI Gabbard simply called Sen. Warner a liar, which is exactly and succinctly correct.

Senator Warner is wetting his pants because the Georgia 2020 election tally looks sketchy to an extreme and he knows the case is beyond his control now. Pulling on that thread will unravel the whole fake tapestry of “Joe Biden’s” election and will reveal the Democratic Party to be a criminal enterprise. The nation itself has to face some unappetizing reality. Four years were stolen from the people and political devices were aligned to destroy the nation. They almost succeeded.

Over in Minnesota the major players are laying low now. Governor Tim Walz, a creep of the thirty-second degree, surrendered his career weeks ago but nervously awaits indictment for presiding over massive social service fraud. ICE is still extracting psychopathic alien mutts out of Minneapolis, while the Cluster-B ladies and their mentally-ill Antifa spear-carriers remain out in the streets banging on sauce-pans. But somewhere in an office, away from the deafening whistles, the money trails are getting tracked from taxpayers to the Learing Centers to the state’s politicians and the DNC and then off forever into the Horn of Africa. You just can’t see it now.

The giant poisonous amoeba that Jeffrey Epstein became has not yielded all of its secrets. Everybody knows that there are darker scenes lurking behind the curtain. The rumors are outlandishly horrifying, worse than anything out of Hollywood’s scare factory, a slaughter of the innocents. Who knows if they are true — well, possibly somebody knows, but these would be things you cannot want to know. One thing I’d like to know: why don’t the dozens of so-called “Epstein Survivors,” grown women supposedly raped and abused by celebrities years ago as children, name their abusers publicly? What’s stopping them as they grandstand around the country? Or is it just another grift?

It’s seven o’clock in the morning as I write (and fifteen-below zero), and World War Three has not started yet, though it seems like the whole US Navy and half the Air Force has deployed in the vicinity of Iran: the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea, accompanied by guided-missile destroyers USS Frank E. Petersen Jr., USS Spruance and USS Michael Murphy. . . destroyers USS McFaul and USS Mitscher in the Straits of Hormuz. . . littoral combat ships USS Canberra, USS Tulsa, and USS Santa Barbara in the Persian Gulf. . . at least a dozen F-15E Strike Eagles relocated to Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan (from RAF base Lakenheath, UK). Additional aircraft like A-10C Thunderbolts noted at regional bases. . . support aircraft, KC-135 Stratotankers for refueling (active at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar), P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol, MQ-9 Reaper drones, and transport/refueling planes (C-17s, etc., deployed around the region.

You have to wonder whether the regime running Iran has already selected martyrdom rather than yielding anything to forces who are sick of them, including many Iranians. Iranian missiles are targeted for Tel Aviv, US bases in the Emirates, and possibly even Saudi Arabia. Could be all bluff. The truth of the situation remains hidden, like everything else right now in the global arena.

Read more …

“Nikolic was later named as executor in Epstein’s will, signed two days before his death, officially by suicide, in August 2019. (As I’m writing this, a friend points out to me that according to Fortnite Tracker, a player with Epstein’s username, littlestjeff1, was still playing, from Israel, in 2024…)”

“..Whitney Webb has stated in conversation with James Corbett: “Jeffrey Epstein was as much a financial criminal as a sex criminal.”

Epstein’s Gates to Pandemonium (Jordi Pigem)

“We are going to have fun,” writes Jeffrey Epstein on December 7, 2009. This phrase is his reply to an email by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Science Advisor (and Scientific Advisor to Bill Gates), Boris Nikolic, who is making a list of “raising stars,” many of them scientists, that they “should visit together.”


By then, everyone must have known that Epstein was a notorious, convicted sex offender. He had been released from jail only a few months before, on July 22. He had been under investigation since 2005: federal officials had identified three dozen girls whom Epstein had allegedly sexually abused (after a controversial plea deal agreed by the US Department of Justice, he was only convicted of two crimes). Why would a high ranking official of Gates’ Foundation want to organize meetings between Epstein and prominent scientists? If it was about money, surely they could find better-looking investors. What, eventually, were they “going to have fun” with?

One of the revelations of the latest batch of Epstein files is his strong interest in viruses, vaccines, pandemics, and mRNA. Two months after getting out of jail, he is writing about viruses, infectious diseases, and something he calls “My BIG idea.”

Or, for instance, in January 2010, he was discussing mRNA and codons.

The latest batch documents of the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, released on January 30, consists of over 3 million pages, with many names redacted. A helpful simulation of Epstein’s inbox has been created, fully searchable and giving access to the contents of over 7,000 emails. With keywords and patience the original documents can then be located on the DOJ website.

The trio Epstein-Nikolic-Gates also features prominently in a long agreement letter sent by Epstein to Gates. According to this 2013 document, Gates “specifically requested” Epstein to “personally serve as the representative” of Nikolic in negotiations over the termination of his work with Gates. The first section of this six-page letter states: “Mr. Gates acknowledges that Mr. Epstein has an existing collegial relationship with Mr. Gates in which Mr. Epstein received confidential and/or proprietary information from Mr. Gates.” An analysis of its contents and wider implications can be found in a detailed article by Sayer Ji on Epstein, Gates, and “Pandemics as a Business Model.”

In March 2017, two and a half years before Event 201, three years before Covid-19 was officially declared a pandemic by the WHO, an email thread involving Gates and bgC3 (Bill Gates Catalyst 3, now Gates Ventures) speaks of “pandemic simulation.”

[..] Epstein was a node in a large network of darkness, and the release of the files may be a threshold into it. In a video interview included in the release, Epstein tells Steve Bannon that he is only “tier-one,” “the lowest level” of sexual predator. As researcher Whitney Webb has stated in conversation with James Corbett: “Jeffrey Epstein was as much a financial criminal as a sex criminal. There’s a very particular reason why mainstream media only wants to talk about his sex crimes between 2000 and 2006. Jeffrey Epstein was also not an anomaly in the network in which he operated. Numerous people engage in sex blackmail and sex trafficking. If you think these issues died with Jeffrey Epstein, you are sorely mistaken. […] And if you were to pull on the Epstein thread, I guess you could say, you start to unravel a lot of the bigger picture.”

In early 2020, not everyone knew the word pandemic. Much less familiar still was the word (more common until 1900) pandemonium. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines pandemonium, in its first sense, as “the abode of all demons” and, later on, as “a place or state of utter confusion and uproar.” Covid was a pandemonium: it did generate a “state of utter confusion.” The word was coined by John Milton in Paradise Lost (1667), where Pandemonium is “the palace of Satan,” “the high capital of Satan and his peers,” and “city and proud seat of Lucifer.” Other than the prefix pan- (Greek for “all”), these words are unrelated.

It seems Gates and Epstein were much closer than it had been assumed. Gates brings to mind, among other things, pandemic preparedness (as in CEPI, the “Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations,” and Event 201, both of which had the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as key funder). Epstein brings to mind a darkness that involved horrible violence to children and, most likely, explicit invocation of powerful evil forces — as is increasingly common in the highest tiers of political, economic, and technological power. Gates and Epstein, pandemic and pandemonium, may be closer than we thought.

Read more …

“..photos and electronics seized failed to connect outside people to trafficking acts.”

The Epstein Files and the Gap Between Suspicion and Proof (David Manney)

If I gave you two guesses to guess the nation’s biggest conspiracy, you wouldn’t hesitate: Jeffrey Epstein’s name carried an implication far larger than the crimes he committed. He sounded like the perfect Bond villain: a wealthy financier, private jets, a secluded island, and a guest list filled with famous figures. That combination led the public to assume that something vast and protected operated behind closed doors. Many people believed there was a hidden network and waited for proof to finally surface. In what can only be described as a shock, federal investigators reached a different conclusion. While one Epstein victim made highly public claims that he “lent her” to his rich friends, agents couldn’t confirm that and found no other victims telling a similar story, the records said.


Summarizing the investigation in an email last July, agents said “four or five” Epstein accusers claimed other men or women had sexually abused them. But, the agents said, there “was not enough evidence to federally charge these individuals, so the cases were referred to local law enforcement.” Epstein’s finances, communications, properties, and travel records were examined for years, and agents reviewed emails, bank transactions, flight logs, photographs, and video footage. They interviewed victims repeatedly and tracked claims involving well-known figures. The abuse of underage girls appeared undeniable; evidence tying others to a coordinated sex trafficking ring did not.

What Investigators Found and Didn’t Find
Records released by the Justice Department describe a lengthy investigation that produced extensive documentation, but few claims involving others were corroborated. Video footage from Epstein’s home showed no criminal conduct involving third parties; photos and electronics seized failed to connect outside people to trafficking acts. Despite allegations repeatedly surfacing, verification never followed. No named individuals were suspects, and each denied wrongdoing. FBI Director Kash Patel directly addressed the issue during testimony before the Senate.

Patel’s remarks cut against the grain of speculation that grew after Epstein’s 2019 arrest and death while in federal custody. As we all know, Epstein died before the trial. Still, his longtime associate, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, was later convicted for recruiting and grooming underage girls, a verdict that confirmed the facilitation of abuse. Given the evidence that came to light, there wasn’t anything to establish a client network. It wasn’t hard to immediately reject the findings, because Epstein’s lifestyle and access fueled suspicions for decades. This quiet conclusion felt unsatisfying, even offensive, to those expecting a reckoning. Victims described patterns of abuse that suggested coordinated patterns.

Palm Beach attorney Spener Kuvin, who represents several Epstein victims, maintains that sealed material may still expose wrongdoing by influential figures. Kuvin continues pressing for broader disclosure. After years of anticipation, the conclusion—if it’s indeed the end—landed softly, like a 4-ton boulder landing on a memory foam mattress, sticking the landing. The disappointment of a lack of drama during the reveal contrasts with an administrative close. When transparency feels incomplete, suspicion thrives. Proof operates differently. Epstein was a monster who committed evil crimes, inflicting lasting harm. Those facts are supported by evidence, but evidence supporting a vast trafficking ring never materialized.

Holding both truths at once proves difficult in a culture conditioned to expect cinematic endings. Questions will remain, along with calls for full release of the files. When documentation and belief diverge, public confidence erodes. Justice relies on proof, not implication. It’s a standard that frustrates people, especially when the rich and powerful are sitting in director chairs nearby. For me, there are three possibilities: the conclusion is correct, more evidence is hidden that confirms suspicions, or this is simply the rich taking care of their own. Acceptance may take time, but for some, it may never arrive.

Read more …

” If you are the leader of a sovereign country and you are invited somewhere, you do not take six, eight, or ten other leaders with you..”

Western Leaders Following Zelensky Around Like ‘Nannies’ – Hungary FM (RT)

Western heads of state have been acting like “nannies” to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky during his talks with the US, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said. In an interview with Georgia’s Rustavi 2 channel which aired on Sunday, Szijjarto said Ukraine’s European backers had rallied to prevent US President Donald Trump from pressuring Zelensky to agree to a peace deal with Russia. “European leaders accompanied him like ‘nannies.’ It was humiliating for President Zelensky. This was obvious to outside observers because the ‘caregivers’ would not let the patient go alone. If you are the leader of a sovereign country and you are invited somewhere, you do not take six, eight, or ten other leaders with you,” Szijjarto said. He added that the entourage of leaders traveling with Zelensky was “a very bad look.”


Multiple media outlets said UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron “coached” Zelensky on how to repair relations with Trump following their explosive argument at the White House in February 2025. The leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Finland accompanied Zelensky during his subsequent visit to the US in August. Szijjarto argued that Ukraine’s European backers had convinced Zelensky to walk away from the first peace talks with Russia nearly four years ago. “And if an agreement is made now, it will clearly be worse for Ukraine and also worse for Europe compared to April 2022,” he said.

Last year, EU officials denounced Trump’s peace plan, which called for Ukraine to withdraw troops from Donbass and make territorial concessions to Russia.

Read more …

“As long as Ukraine demands that Hungary be cut off from cheap Russian energy, Ukraine is not simply our opponent, Ukraine is our enemy…”

Ukraine Is Our Enemy – Orban (RT)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has branded Ukraine an “enemy” over its demands that Hungary stop buying Russian oil and gas. Budapest has resisted the EU’s attempts to phase out Russian energy supplies as part of sanctions imposed on Russia over the Ukraine conflict, which escalated in February 2022. Speaking at a campaign rally in the western city of Szombathely on Saturday, Orban acc zused Ukraine of undermining Hungary’s security.


“The Ukrainians must stop their constant demands in Brussels to disconnect Hungary from cheap Russian energy,” Orban said. “As long as Ukraine demands that Hungary be cut off from cheap Russian energy, Ukraine is not simply our opponent, Ukraine is our enemy,” he said, warning that households would face dramatic spikes in utility bills.Orban reiterated his opposition to Ukraine joining the EU, arguing that a “military or economic alliance” with Kiev “will lead to trouble.” On Monday, Hungary announced that it would file a lawsuit against the bloc over what it called a “suicidal” ban on Russian energy.

The European Commission is currently debating the 20th sanctions package, which includes a ban on maritime services for Russian oil. Last month, the European Council approved a roadmap to end all remaining Russian gas supplies by the end of 2027. Unlike many other EU members, Hungary has refused to send weapons to Ukraine and has urged the bloc to prioritize a diplomatic resolution of the conflict. Orban has also warned that further escalation could trigger an all-out war between NATO and Russia.

Read more …

“…whenever the diplomatic door cracks open, someone try to slam it shut with explosives, drones, or bullets..”

Zelensky Tried To Kill The Chance For Russia-Ukraine Peace, Again (Romanenko)

The assassination attempt on Lieutenant General Vladimir Alekseyev, first deputy chief of Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) is clearly the Zelensky regime’s latest desperate bid to sabotage the emerging Russia-Ukraine-US negotiations channel in Abu Dhabi and prolong the war. When negotiations gain traction, spoilers surface. That’s Negotiations 101. And this week’s second round in Abu Dhabi was precisely the kind of movement that unnerves actors who fear ballots, reforms, and accountability more than inevitable defeat on the battlefield. The target choice reinforces the point. Alekseyev is the second-in-command of GRU chief Igor Kostyukov – who sits on the Russian delegation in Abu Dhabi.


Striking the No. 2 as the No. 1 shuttles between sessions is both a very deliberate message and an attempt to rattle Russia’s delegation, inject chaos into its decision loop, force security overdrive, and ultimately, provoke Moscow’s withdrawal from the talks. Nor is this the first time kinetic theater has tracked with diplomatic motion. Recall the attempted drone strike on President Vladimir Putin’s Valdai residence in late 2025, which coincided with particularly intense US-Russia exchanges. You don’t have to be a cynic to see a pattern: whenever the diplomatic door cracks open, someone try to slam it shut with explosives, drones, or bullets – then retreats behind a smokescreen of denials and proxies. Call it plausible deniability as policy.

Why would Kiev’s leadership gamble like this? Start with raw political incentives. Vladimir Zelensky extended his tenure beyond the intended March 2024 election under martial law. If hostilities wind down and emergency powers lift, the ballot box looms. His standing has eroded amid war fatigue, unmet expectations, and a massive corruption scandal swirling around the presidential administration that has infuriated many Ukrainians and dealt his image a blow. End the war without a narrative of total victory, and he risks owning a messy peace, grueling reconstruction, and a reckoning at the polls. Facing voters at a stadium famously worked well during Zelensky’s initial presidential campaign, but now endlessly moving the goalposts is his only hope of clinging to power.

Read more …

“The foreign minister said Moscow would retaliate with full force against a potential aggression from the West ..”

Russia Will Not Attack Europe Unless Struck First – Lavrov (RT)

Russia will not attack EU or NATO member states unless it is attacked first, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. Western officials have justified increased military spending by citing the need to defend NATO’s eastern flank. Germany’s top military commander, General Carsten Breuer, said in December 2025 that the country must be ready for a potential war with Russia by 2029. Moscow has accused the West of warmongering. “We have no intention of attacking Europe. There is no reason to do so,” Lavrov told NTV in an interview aired on Sunday.


“If Europe acts on its threats to prepare for war against us and initiates an attack on the Russian Federation, it will face a full-fledged military response from our side, with all available military capabilities,” he said. At a year-end press conference in December, President Vladimir Putin dismissed claims that Russia was planning to attack NATO as “nonsense.” Russian officials have said, however, that Western military aid to Ukraine, including the delivery of long-range and advanced weapons, increases the risk of a broader conflict. Moscow has also accused the EU of seeking to derail US-brokered peace talks with Ukraine and prolong the fighting.

Read more …

Ukrainian nationalism is a recent invention.

Torture, Murder, Ethnic Cleansing. Meet Ukraine’s ‘National Heroes’ (RT)

In early February 1929, 97 years ago, a group of Ukrainian political émigrés gathered in Vienna to formalize what they believed was a movement of national liberation. What emerged from that congress, however, was not merely a campaign for statehood, but a radical organization that rejected democratic norms and embraced political violence. Members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) took part in Nazi Germany’s aggression against Poland and the USSR, carried out mass killings on ethnic and political grounds, and conducted sabotage operations first for the Third Reich and later for Western powers. Those members of the OUN who survived and could not flee to the West faced criminal charges in the USSR; however, many were granted amnesty by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in an effort to promote internal reconciliation in Ukraine. In this article, we examine how the OUN developed into a militant movement whose actions during and after World War II left a lasting and controversial historical legacy.


The roots of Ukrainian nationalism
The history of Ukrainian nationalism is rather brief. The term ‘Ukrainians’ was not used as an ethnonym until the late 19th century. According to historians, the idea that Ukrainians are a separate nation from Russians was quickly seized upon by the Austro-Hungarian authorities, who recognized its ‘anti-Russia’ potential. In contrast, Galician Russophiles who advocated for unity between the Carpathian region’s population and Russians faced severe repression from the Austro-Hungarians. During World War I, Austrians actively promoted Ukrainian nationalism to recruit volunteers for their army.

Historians note that amid the revolutionary events of 1917 in Russia, Ukrainian nationalism became a “political elevator” for various public figures. The nationalists argued for the necessity of creating an autonomous political space within what is now Ukraine, formed the ‘Central Rada’ and tried to persuade Russia’s Provisional Government to grant them authority. Following the October Revolution, they proclaimed the establishment of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR). UPR leaders liberated and armed Austro-Hungarian prisoners of war in order to suppress uprisings by local residents who supported leftist movements; however, the nationalists fled Kiev when Bolshevik forces approached the city.

Later, the German command engaged representatives of the UPR for negotiations in Brest, formally recognizing their control over Ukraine’s territory before occupying it. However, the German authorities considered UPR representatives unreliable, ineffective, and linked to criminal activities. One day, a German patrol entered the Central Rada’s meeting hall, arrested suspects, and dispersed the others. The new appointee of the German administration was former tsarist general, hetman Pavel Skoropadsky. However, following Germany’s defeat in WWI, his regime collapsed. Former political figures of the UPR headed by Simon Petliura then tried to seize control of the UPR.

After suffering a swift defeat at the hands of the Red Army, Petliura’s followers fled to Poland, promising to cede western Ukraine in exchange for assistance against the Bolsheviks. However, as a result of the Polish-Soviet War, much of modern Ukraine remained under the control of the Ukrainian SSR, while Poland took Galicia and Volhynia without granting any concessions to Petliura’s faction.

Read more …

She got Trump written all over her.

Massive Win for Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi (CTH)

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi took a calculated risk only three months after her October 2025 election victory when she dissolved the Japanese Parliament and called for a snap election. The high-stakes gamble paid off, with Japanese voters handing her ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) a big super-majority Sunday.Takaichi said in a January press conference, calling for the snap election was a “profoundly weighty decision,” adding that “by doing so, I am also putting my position as prime minister on the line.” The voters responded with great enthusiasm for her leadership. Sanae Takaichi was also a protege’ of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a close personal friend of President Donald Trump.


President Trump who heartedly endorsed Takaichi also celebrated the outcome on Truth Social: “Congratulations to Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and her Coalition on a LANDSLIDE Victory in today’s very important Vote. She is a highly respected and very popular Leader. Sanae’s bold and wise decision to call for an Election paid off big time. Her Party now runs the Legislature, holding a HISTORIC TWO THIRDS SUPERMAJORITY — The first time since World War Il. Sanae: It was my Honor to Endorse you and your Coalition. I wish you Great Success in passing your Conservative, Peace Through Strength Agenda. The wonderful people of Japan, who voted with such enthusiasm, will always have my strong support.”

Yahoo: […] After an election framed as a referendum on Takaichi herself, the LDP party won more than 310 of the 465 seats in Japan’s lower house, marking the first time since World War II that a single party has secured a two-thirds majority. The broader ruling coalition won more than 340 seats. In an interview with NHK, Takaichi thanked the voters who “braved the cold and walked through the snowy roads to cast their votes.” “I wanted the voters to give me a mandate because I advocated for responsible, proactive fiscal policy that would significantly shift economic and fiscal policy,” she added. The hardline conservative, who enjoys US President Donald Trump’s endorsement, has seen high approval ratings since she was elected less than four months ago, making history as the first woman to lead Japan. She has won over the public with her strong work ethic, savvy social media game and charisma. [..]

Mrs Takaichi, like Shinzo Abe, is a strong Japanese conservative with a deep nationalist perspective. This Japanese election outcome is the opposite of what China would like to see happen in the region. Writing on X Sunday, Takaichi thanked President Trump for his endorsement earlier this month and said the potential of the US-Japan alliance was “LIMITLESS.” From a North American perspective, the alignment of Takaichi and Trump will provide further bolstering to the upcoming dissolution of the USMCA, as Japan will not want to be on the wrong side of the new bilateral agreements likely to happen as an outcome. Japan will be cautious with any investment positioning in Canada.

Read more …

Take it away.

President Trump Superbowl Day Interview (CTH)

In what has become an annual tradition, here’s the full Superbowl Day interview with NBC News’ Tom Llamas and President Donald Trump. President Trump addresses the ongoing immigration enforcement, the state of the American economy, U.S. tensions with Iran and other topics from the oval office in the White House. The interview was conducted on Wednesday, February 4 and broadcast today. The interview is an hour long.


Read more …

Nope. I still don’t get it. I can’t be the only one.

Dems Melting Down Over Voter ID As DHS Shutdown Talks Hit Wall (ZH)

Update on the latest negotiations to keep the Department of Homeland Security funded beyond next Friday, which requires at least 60 votes to pass unless the filibuster is done away with. Recall: Congress passed five out of six appropriations packages on Feb. 3, ending a brief partial government shutdown that began on Jan. 31 – while giving DHS, which controls ICE, a lifeline until Feb. 13 as Democrats and Republicans hash out reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) after two white knight protesters were shot while interfering with lawful ICE operations.’ Democrats have a list of 10 ‘non-negotiable’ reforms that they insist must be included in any DHS funding bill, including;


• Requiring judicial warrants signed by a judge before agents can make arrests in homes or private spaces.
• Mandating body-worn cameras for all enforcement actions – though serious pushback has emerged from the left over fears that facial recognition technology will be used to catalogue and track protesters.
• Democratic lawmakers are now seeking to ban ICE and CBP from using facial recognition and other biometric ID technologies altogether. [ZH: Things are always interesting when the shoe is on the other foot, but why stop at DHS / CBP? Maybe protect all of us from this shit?]
• Prohibiting agents from wearing masks or face coverings during operations to ensure identification.
• Implementing new use-of-force standards to prevent excessive violence.
• Ending racial profiling in enforcement activities.
• Requiring clear identification of DHS officers (e.g., visible badges and agency markings).
• Other provisions for “real accountability,” such as oversight mechanisms and restrictions on certain tactics.


Republicans are pushing to attach their own priorities to the DHS bill – primarily the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and presentation of ID to cast ballots. The SAVE Act, which was passed by the House in April and is currently stalled in the Senate – would require voters to present an eligible photo ID, while also requiring proof of citizenship be presented in person when registering to vote, such as a passport or birth certificate. It would also require states to remove non-citizens from existing voter rolls.

GOP leaders like Speaker Johnson and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna arguing it’s necessary for election integrity. Some Republicans also want restrictions on “sanctuary cities” that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and broader measures to crack down on illegal immigration. For some strange reason, Democrats are vehemently opposed to election integrity – and have brought back the well worn trope that voter ID disenfranchises people who are somehow able to produce ID to open a bank account, buy alcohol or tobacco, and obtain welfare (in states that require it!), despite scant calls to reform those activities over disenfranchisement.

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2017429285418492017

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) last week called the SAVE Act ‘Jim Crow 2.0 across the country,’ and says that the Democrats are “going to do everything we can to stop it.” “It’s really important for us to be clear that we should be making it easier, more accessible for Americans, for U.S. citizens, to vote,” said Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ). “The SAVE Act is far from a bill that’s actually making it more possible for people to vote, and when you’re suppressing so many people, especially because of their last name, because of women, because of many reasons, I think that it makes it really difficult for us to want to support a bill like that.”

Yet, there is broad support for voter ID, including among blacks and hispanics. Democrats in both chambers struggled to reconcile their diehard opposition when 82% of Hispanic voters and 76% of Black voters support a photo ID requirement at the polls, according to a Pew Research Center survey last year. The survey also found that 85% of White voters and 77% of Asian American voters support requiring a government-issued photo ID to vote. While a photo ID requirement is more popular among Republican voters, 95%, Democratic voters also widely support it, at 71%. -Washington Times Even CNN noticed.

Read more …

If we can train it to do the backflip (most people can’t do one), what else can it learn to do?

Humanoid Robot Nails Perfect Backflip As Mobility Progress Accelerates (ZH)

Boston Dynamics has released new footage of its flagship humanoid robot program, “Atlas,” showcasing next-level mobility and reinforcing our greatest fears that when these bots are paired with “brains,” adoption can quickly move from factory floors to offensive defense missions.n”Now that the Atlas enterprise platform is getting to work, the research version gets one last run in the sun. Our engineers made one final push to test the limits of full-body control and mobility, with help from the RAI Institute,” Boston Dynamics, which is owned by Hyundai Motor Group, wrote in the description of a video titled “Atlas Airborne.”


The video shows Atlas pulling off an impressive cartwheel, capped by a near-perfect backflip landing, at the Robotics & AI Institute testing facility. The institute is a research organization focused on solving fundamental challenges in robotics and AI. The video also highlights several other mobility accomplishments. What’s clear to us is that these humanoid robots are set to march en masse onto assembly lines, warehouses, and other factory floors this year.mAs we noted earlier, “robot brains” are already here, accelerating the shift from promotional stunts to real-world use cases and, ultimately, mass commercial adoption across manufacturing settings.

We think there is a rising probability here, frankly high enough that someone should start a Polymarket bet, that humanoid robots for dual use could show up at testing grounds in Ukraine as soon as this year. We have warned about the dual-use risk even as leading companies, including Boston Dynamics, Agility Robotics, ANYbotics, Clearpath Robotics, Open Robotics, Unitree, and Figure AI, publicly state they will not weaponize their bots. To our knowledge, Foundation is the only U.S. humanoid robotics developer with an offensive contract with the Department of Defense.

These bots have gone from clunky machines that could barely walk in a straight line to running and doing flips in just several years. Our reporting should give readers a framework for the 2030s that makes dual-use humanoid robots unavoidable.

Read more …

Not fit for the Debt Rattle format, because much too long, but I want to point you to it.

The Myth of the American Free Press: A History – Part I of II (Wilson)

Something odd happens to the human brain when we watch a smooth presenter on television. Fluency reads as intelligence. Comfort reads as authority. Tone communicates confidence, sympathy, or righteous anger before a single claim is evaluated. A person at ease on camera appears to possess a wisdom beyond that of ordinary people. But turn the set around. Behind that presenter is an army: writers, editors, producers, lighting specialists, camera operators, and teleprompter technicians, all working to deliver not just information but mood. The authority we perceive is produced, not discovered.


Print journalism is no different, only quieter. Editors, publishers, advertisers, political actors, and persistent complainants all exert pressure on what gets covered and how. This does not mean journalists are dishonest. It means authority is structural. The modern tendency to treat journalism as a secular oracle did not arise naturally. It was built, reinforced by technology, culture, and myth. To understand why that authority now feels unstable, it helps to look backward, back to when the press was a critical element in the birth of the United States.

Pamphlets, Papers, and the Birth of the Republic
American journalism began as argument. Before the United States existed, pamphlets and newspapers circulated openly partisan claims. The most consequential example is The Federalist Papers, published in newspapers as a public argument for ratifying the Constitution. These essays did not pretend to neutrality. They explained power, acknowledged tradeoffs, and trusted readers to reason. Without them, ratification would almost certainly have failed. Instead of one united nation, we would have remained a collection of squabbling states subject to absorption by the next strong power that came along.

Journalism earned early prestige not by being impartial, but by being useful. It treated citizens as adults capable of judging competing claims. Benjamin Franklin understood this instinctively. As printer, editor, and satirist, he grasped both persuasion and commerce. A press that could not survive could not matter. bEarly newspapers were openly partisan. Bias was visible. Authority was contestable. Trust arose not from neutrality, but from pluralism, from rivalry that constrained exaggeration and error That origin story still shapes how journalists see themselves. The press helped build the nation, and unlike many institutions, it has never fully disowned that legacy. But embedded in that self-image was an irony: journalism learned to criticize everything except itself.

In the nineteenth century, journalism discovered that story moves people more reliably than argument alone.Industrialization expanded readership. Newspapers became mass products. Charles Dickens pioneered the use of serialized reporting and fiction to expose poverty and institutional cruelty, and American papers followed his lucrative model. Dickens’s techniques made readers feel conditions, not just understand them. Advocacy and readership reinforced one another. Mark Twain reached similar conclusions through satire. Humor, timing, and voice mattered. Journalism did not need to be neutral to be effective. It needed to land.

The abolitionist press took this further. Its journalism was unapologetically partisan and morally urgent, relying on vivid personal narratives. Much of it was true. Some of it was exaggerated. The cause was just, and the methods worked. The lesson endured: once a cause is framed as morally existential, emotional narrative outranks verification. Truth without force can be ignored. Truth delivered through story cannot.

Read more …

“In the end, Vance and his mother have overcome far greater challenges than this vicious columnist or the hatefest at Bluesky..”.

NY Times Columnist Says Vance’s Mother Should Have Sold Him (Turley)

In an age of rage, it is often difficult to stand out in the mob as so many pander to the perpetually irate. However, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie has found a way to win the race to the bottom. In a posting on Bluesky, Bouie mocked the account of the addiction of the mother of Vice President J.D. Vance, saying that she should have sold her son for drugs.nBouie used Bluesky (the digital safe zone for the viewpoint intolerant on the left) to post one of the most reprehensible attacks on Vance. Bouie wrote that “this is a wicked man who knows he is being wicked and does it anyway.” That is hardly notable on today’s rage scale. However, he then decided to use the painful addiction history of Beverly Aikins against her son:


“No wonder his mom tried to sell him for Percocets. [I] can’t imagine a parent who wouldn’t sell little JD for percocet if they knew he would turn out like this.’ Vance wrote a celebrated bestseller, “Hillbilly Elegy,” about his difficult childhood with a mother who became addicted to pain medication and eventually found herself stealing drugs from her patients. It was a tragic account of how addiction tore their family apart, but also a tale of redemption: “I knew that a mother could love her son despite the grip of addiction. I knew that my family loved me, even when they struggled to take care of themselves.” In April of last year, Vance celebrated his mother’s decade of sobriety.

As I discuss in my new book “Rage and the Republic,” a common element to past radical movements has been the dehumanization of political opponents. In calling others “Gestapo,” “fascists,” and “Nazis,” you achieve a certain license to say and do things that you would ordinarily never say or do. By stripping them of any humanity or right to empathy, you are free to discard the limitations of decency and civility. Rage is itself a type of drug. It is addictive and, while they never admit it, they like it. Bouie shows the lack of self-awareness in his hateful posts, objecting that “this is a wicked man who knows he is being wicked and does it anyway.”

It is the ultimate example of transference; a self-description ascribed to those you hate. On his New York Times bio, Bouie insists that “I come from a left-leaning, social democratic perspective, but I strive for honesty, fairness and good faith in my writing.” He adds that “I abide by the same rigorous ethical standards as all Times journalists.” If using Vance’s tragic childhood and his mother’s addiction is an example of the “fairness and good faith” of the New York Times, it is a chilling prospect. In his book, Vance observes that the children of broken and impoverished homes often give up hope, as he did:

“Psychologists call it “learned helplessness” when a person believes, as I did during my youth, that the choices I made had no effect on the outcomes in my life.” He found that choices do matter in shaping your life. We all make such choices, as did Bouie in becoming another voice of rage and the New York Times in giving him a platform to amplify his views. It is the same choice that the Times makes in barring a U.S. senator and firing editors for exposing readers to alternative viewpoints while publishing those who advocate repression or rationalize political violence. To the obvious appeal of its readers, the paper now peddles in hate to feed a national addiction.

In the end, Vance and his mother have overcome far greater challenges than this vicious columnist or the hatefest at Bluesky. From adversity, they found a strength and a bond that has inspired many who are struggling with such addictions and poverty. It is clear who is “wicked” in these postings. Perhaps it is even strangely edifying and self-condemning. As Victor Hugo observed, “the wicked envy and hate; it is their way of admiring.”

Read more …

“Trump previously questioned Machado’s suitability for office, saying she “doesn’t have the support or the respect within the country.”

Trump Officials Slam Venezuelan Nobel Winner As ‘Spoiler’ (RT)

White House officials have grown “frustrated” with anti-Maduro Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado over her remarks on the timing of elections in Venezuela, Politico reported on Friday, citing sources. Earlier this week, Machado, an opposition leader who backed the US intervention in Venezuela and the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro in early January, told Politico that voting could be implemented fairly quickly, suggesting nine to ten months as a possible timeframe.


According to a White House adviser who spoke to the outlet on condition of anonymity, Machado’s comments “rubbed some people the wrong way,” with the official accusing her of “undermining the president’s policy success,” including the release of political prisoners, joint law-enforcement operations between the two countries, and other areas of cooperation.m“All Maria Corina Machado does is try to negate all of this… she’s selfish,” the adviser said. “None of this is ‘Operation Maria Corina Machado.’ It’s ‘Operation US national security,’ which is not tied to her in any way. She’s a spoiler and she’s working against US national security goals.”

Another person close to the White House said the former congresswoman “shouldn’t be opining on a time frame,” adding that “[24] months is a more realistic time frame.” In a statement to Politico, the White House stressed that elections cannot happen “overnight” and would be held “at the right time,” adding that US President Donald Trump’s top priority is rebuilding the country before an election takes place.n Machado’s office dismissed the criticism as “media noise” and rumors, insisting that the opposition is “closely aligned” with the US government “in our approach.”

Trump previously questioned Machado’s suitability for office, saying she “doesn’t have the support or the respect within the country.” Machado, a former congresswoman with longstanding ties to Washington who has led anti-government protests, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in December for what the committee described as her struggle for a peaceful democratic transition. She later gifted the medal to Trump, though the Nobel Committee has insisted that the prize “cannot be revoked, shared, or transferred to others.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/911NewsBreaks/status/2019842264025997792?s=20 https://twitter.com/ScottJenningsKY/status/2020566297981878322?s=20

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

May 092025
 


Samuel Peploe Paris-plage 1907

 

Berlin Bans Soviet Flags On 80th Anniversary Of Nazi Defeat (RT)
Vance Outlines Changed US Strategy On Ukraine (RT)
Trump Calls For ‘Unconditional Ceasefire’ In Ukraine (RT)
Ukraine Ready For Immediate Ceasefire – Zelensky (RT)
Ukraine’s Debt Doubles In Three Years – Finance Minister (RT)
Russia and China Will Never Forget WWII Victims – Putin (RT)
Russia-China Ties Most Important Stabilizing Factor – Putin (Sp.)
The West Is Dismantling The Foundations of 1945 (Lukyanov)
Von der Leyen Has No Business Telling Vucic And Fico Where They Can Go (Borges)
Kennedy Defends Casey Means’ Nomination For Surgeon General Amid Backlash (JTN)
Some of Hegseth’s Passwords Exposed in Cyberattacks, Shown on Internet (Sp.)
Western Canada Puts the Rest of Canada on Notice (David Solway)
Trump’s Ultimate Troll Move Would Send DC Leftists Into Meltdown (Margolis)
How Pollsters Rig the Numbers Against Trump (Victor Davis Hanson)
Trump Urges GOP To Raise Taxes On The Wealthy To Fund Economic Agenda (ZH)
Trump’s Unprecedented Trade Deal With Britain (Victoria Taft)

 

 

https://twitter.com/volcaholic1/status/1920423950691061934

Leo

https://twitter.com/RussiaIsntEnemy/status/1920170584094486686


https://twitter.com/simpatico771/status/1920377564096254257

Casey Means


https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1920293145537098043

Patel

Alex

 

 

 

 

Deadly symbolic.

“..degrading to human dignity..” indeed.

Berlin Bans Soviet Flags On 80th Anniversary Of Nazi Defeat (RT)

A Berlin court has upheld a ban on displaying Soviet flags and symbols at World War II memorials during the city’s events marking the defeat of Nazi Germany, citing concerns over public peace and the Ukraine conflict. Moscow, has decried the “degrading” and “discriminatory” prohibition. Earlier this week, Berlin police issued a ban on the demonstration of numerous Soviet-linked symbols during the May 8-9 events in the capital, including singing Soviet songs in public. An unidentified local association filed an appeal against the ban, arguing that it unfairly restricted freedom of assembly for their planned commemoration at a Soviet Memorial in Treptow. Berlin’s Administrative Court ruled on Wednesday that the police prohibition, which applies to Soviet flags, the Victory Banner, St. George’s ribbons, historical military uniforms, and even wartime songs, stands.

The symbols, according to the court, could be “interpreted as an expression of sympathy for the [Russian] war effort” against Ukraine and “endanger public peace”. The Russian embassy in Berlin strongly criticized the ban, saying it violated the rights of descendants of Soviet soldiers and concerned residents to honor the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazism. Up to 27 million Soviet citizens died in their efforts to defeat Nazism. “We deem the ban unjustified, discriminatory, and degrading to human dignity and view it as clear manifestations of historical revisionism and political opportunism,” the embassy statement read.

”We are convinced that on these significant days, everyone… should have the opportunity, regardless of the current political context, to honor the memory and pay tribute to the fallen Red Army soldiers and victims of Nazism in accordance with established long-standing traditions. Any attempts to prevent this deserve condemnation. We urgently demand that the relevant decision be repealed,” it stressed. In 2023, Berlin police prohibited both Russian and Soviet flags during Victory Day commemorations, and in 2024 authorities outlawed Russian and Soviet symbols, including the red Victory Banner and the letters “Z” and “V,” associated with the Russian campaign against Ukraine. In both cases, some people defied the ban by wearing Soviet military attire and displaying the prohibited flags.

Read more …

I’m still not sure that Vance did his homework. He says here: “We’ve tried to move beyond the obsession with the 30-day ceasefire..” But whose obsession is that? We know it’s not Russia’s, it took them all of 5 seconds to say Njet. So it’s probably just US and Ukraine. But since Russia must be part of any deal here, that is useless to think about, let alone obsess.

Russia doesn’t want that 30-day ceasefire because all sorts of things must be agreed first. ‘Demilitarization’ is a big one. But while Vance obsesses over the 30 days, Trump signs a minerals deal that promises Ukraine more weaponry.

“Certainly, the first peace offer that the Russians put on the table, our reaction to it was you’re asking for too much..” We don’t know the exact offer, but we do know that when Russia says ”no preconditions”, they mean the status of Crimea is not a (pre)condition, it is a fact. Sort of like ‘Demilitarization’. And Putin doesn’t care what Zelensky or Trump or Vance think. Some things are open to negotiation, others are not.

Vance Outlines Changed US Strategy On Ukraine (RT)

Washington wants to move away from the “obsession” with a 30-day ceasefire proposed by Ukraine, US Vice President J.D. Vance has said. The US is more interested in shaping a durable peace agreement with Moscow, he told a Munich Leaders Meeting on Wednesday. Ukraine had floated a one-month ceasefire as a counter to Russia’s 72-hour truce proposal to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. However, Moscow has rejected Kiev’s plan, arguing that Ukrainian troops, which have been on the backfoot for months, would use it to regroup and strengthen their military posture. Vance stressed that the US remains interested in a “long-term settlement” of the conflict rather than a short-term one.

“We’ve tried to move beyond the obsession with the 30-day ceasefire and more on the what would the long-term settlement look like? And we’ve tried to consistently advance the ball,” the vice president said. Vance also noted that the US has deemed Moscow’s initial negotiation proposals as excessive. “Certainly, the first peace offer that the Russians put on the table, our reaction to it was you’re asking for too much,” he said. “But this is how negotiations unfold.” Vance added that US President Donald Trump is prepared to abandon negotiations if there is no progress, urging Moscow and Kiev to engage in diplomacy. “We would like both the Russians and the Ukrainians to actually agree on some basic guidelines for sitting down and talking to one another.” Russia has repeatedly said it is open to talks with Kiev but noted that Ukraine has low credibility, especially when it comes to honoring ceasefire commitments.

Moscow’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has accused Ukraine of sabotaging earlier efforts on this front, including a US-brokered 30-day moratorium on strikes on energy infrastructure and a Moscow-backed Easter truce. In light of this, she noted that Russia would view Ukraine’s conduct during the 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire, which went into effect on Thursday, as a test of good faith. Moscow earlier described the initiative as a humanitarian gesture and a move to pave the way for direct peace talks with Ukraine without preconditions. Meanwhile, Trump appeared to support the three-day ceasefire, noting that it “doesn’t sound like much, but it’s a lot, if you know where we started from.”

Read more …

As long as he doesn’t confuse facts with conditions, no problem.

Trump Calls For ‘Unconditional Ceasefire’ In Ukraine (RT)

US President Donald Trump expressed hope that Moscow and Kiev would soon agree on a month-long truce following his Thursday call with Vladimir Zelensky, amid a 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire that was unilaterally declared by Russia Starting at midnight on Thursday, Russian forces ceased hostilities and remained at previously occupied positions, only providing a “tit-for-tat reaction” to violations by Ukraine, according to the Defense Ministry in Moscow. Ukrainian troops reportedly carried out at least 488 attacks and attempted two incursions into Russia’s Kursk Region, according to the ministry. Zelensky, who had previously dismissed the Russian peace initiative as “manipulation” while Kiev intensified drone strikes on Russian territory, held a phone call with Trump later in the day.

After the call, he claimed that “Ukraine is ready for a complete ceasefire today, right from this moment,” but insisted that the truce should last for at least 30 days. “Talks with Russia/Ukraine continue,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social after the call. The US calls for, ideally, a 30-day unconditional ceasefire. Hopefully, an acceptable ceasefire will be observed, and both countries will be held accountable for respecting the sanctity of these direct negotiations. Trump warned that if a ceasefire is reached but “is not respected, the US and its partners will impose further sanctions.” Moscow has repeatedly stated its readiness to begin negotiations with Ukraine without any preconditions. In March, it agreed to a US-brokered 30-day partial ceasefire focused on halting strikes on energy infrastructure. However, according to the Russian military, Kiev violated the truce on numerous occasions.

When announcing the ceasefire last week, President Vladimir Putin described it as a humanitarian gesture to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany – and one that could also serve as a catalyst for “the start of direct negotiations with Kiev without preconditions.” While calling for a longer “unconditional ceasefire” on Thursday, Trump stressed that the truce “must ultimately build toward a Peace Agreement,” reiterating his commitment to secure a “lasting” peace between Russia and Ukraine. “It can all be done very quickly, and I will be available on a moment’s notice if my services are needed,” he added.

Read more …

Just not on Russia’s conditions. Who won that war again?

Ukraine Ready For Immediate Ceasefire – Zelensky (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has announced that Kiev is ready for a “complete ceasefire” without any preconditions. A truce could be implemented “from this very minute,” he stated in a message published on his official Telegram channel following talks with US President Donald Trump on Thursday. According to Zelensky, the discussions focused on ways to “bring a real and lasting ceasefire closer,” as well as the “situation on the front lines” and ongoing “diplomatic efforts.” He maintained that the truce should last for at least 30 days, claiming it would “create many opportunities for diplomacy.” “Ukraine is ready for a complete ceasefire today, right from this moment,” he said, adding that it should include “no missile strikes, drone attacks, or hundreds of assaults along the frontline.”

He called on Russia to give an “adequate” response to the offer and to “demonstrate their willingness to end the war.” Zelensky also urged Washington to support this initiative. His statement came amid a 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire unilaterally declared by Russia. President Vladimir Putin announced the truce last week, describing it as a humanitarian gesture to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany that could also serve as a catalyst for “the start of direct negotiations with Kiev without preconditions.” Zelensky dismissed the Russian initiative at the time as “a manipulation,” while Kiev intensified drone strikes on Russian territory ahead of the ceasefire’s scheduled start. On Thursday, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that Ukrainian forces had launched nearly 500 attacks since the ceasefire took effect.

The Russian military also repelled two attempted cross-border incursions by Ukrainian troops during the truce, according to data from the ministry. Kiev has repeatedly demanded an immediate 30-day ceasefire over the past few months. Moscow has opposed the initiative, arguing that Ukraine would use the time to regroup its troops and restock weapons inventories. Russia recently said that it is ready for direct talks with Ukraine “without preconditions,” and has advocated for a permanent resolution to the conflict that addresses the root causes. In March, it agreed to a US-brokered 30-day partial ceasefire focused on halting strikes on energy infrastructure. However, according to the Russian military, Kiev violated the truce on numerous occasions.

Read more …

“..we are talking about the fact that in the next 30 years… we will not pay these debts..”

Ukraine’s Debt Doubles In Three Years – Finance Minister (RT)

Ukraine will be unable to repay its foreign creditors in the next 30 years, with public debt nearing 100% of GDP, Finance Minister Sergey Marchenko said on Thursday. He added, however, that Kiev intends to continue borrowing. Since the escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2022, Ukraine has received billions in military, financial, and humanitarian aid and loans from the US, the EU and other donors. Kiev’s mounting state debt, which is approaching 7.1 trillion hryvnas ($171 billion), has raised concerns about the country’s fiscal stability and its capacity to meet future obligations. According to Marchenko, before 2022, Ukraine’s debt-to-GDP ratio “was quite safe” at 55%, however, the country is now approaching 100%. The minister downplayed the situation, stating that the public debt was “not a problem” as the funds that Kiev received from foreign creditors came on preferential terms.

“That is, we are talking about the fact that in the next 30 years… we will not pay these debts,” Marchenko said. “In any scenario… we need additional sources of funding…we will not be able to hold the situation together on our own, whether there is war… or peace,” he added. The minister went on to suggest that Kiev’s western backers could decide to service Ukraine’s external debts from their own budgets. For the time being, interest generated by Russian central bank assets frozen in the West due to sanctions has been used to service Kiev’s debt. In April, Japan agreed to issue a loan of about $3 billion, to be repaid from Moscow’s money. Also last month, Ukraine received the third tranche of €1 billion from the EU, secured by proceeds from the frozen funds.

Russia has vehemently opposed the move, labeling it “theft” and threatening retaliation. The US, Ukraine’s largest donor, has moved to recoup its financial aid to Ukraine by signing a natural resources deal with Kiev. The agreement grants the US preferential access to Ukrainian mineral resources without providing security guarantees. The deputy head of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, has commented that the US essentially “forced the Kiev regime to pay for American aid,” with “the national wealth of a vanishing country.” Ukraine also faces a potential default on nearly $600 million in payments due in May for GDP-linked securities. Negotiations with hedge funds for restructuring the debt have so far been unsuccessful.

Read more …

“..a “no limits” partnership where there are “no forbidden zones.”

Russia and China Will Never Forget WWII Victims – Putin (RT)

Moscow and Beijing remain staunch defenders of the historic truth and remember the countless people their countries lost during World War II, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said during talks with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. Xi is among the more than two dozen world leaders who are expected to attend the events in Moscow commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. The Chinese president is also poised to hold negotiations with Russian officials. During a meeting on Thursday, Putin thanked his “dear friend” Xi for the visit and for joining him in celebrating a “sacred holiday for Russia.” “The sacrifices that both our nations made should never be forgotten. The Soviet Union gave 27 million lives, laid them on the altar of the Fatherland and on the altar of Victory.

And 37 million lives were lost in China’s war for its freedom and independence. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, this victory was achieved,” he said. Putin highlighted the significance of the triumph over fascism, adding that Russia and China “defend historical truth and the memory of the war and fight against current manifestations of neo-Nazism and militarism.” The Russian leader also thanked Xi for inviting him to his country’s celebrations of its victory over Imperial Japan in WWII. “I will be glad to come back to friendly China on an official visit,” he said.

In echoing remarks, Xi emphasized shared historical memory and the strategic alignment between Beijing and Moscow. “The Chinese and Russian peoples, at the cost of heavy losses, achieved a great victory” and made an “indelible historic contribution to global peace and the progress of humanity,” he noted.Russia and China have long enjoyed close ties, with the two countries describing their relations as a “no limits” partnership where there are “no forbidden zones.” Beijing has also consistently refused to support Western sanctions against Moscow over the Ukraine conflict.

Read more …

Hard to beat.

Russia-China Ties Most Important Stabilizing Factor – Putin (Sp.)

Ties between Russia and China are the most important stabilizing factor in the international arena, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday. “In the context of a difficult geopolitical situation and global uncertainty, the Russian-Chinese foreign policy nexus is the most important stabilizing factor in the international arena,” Putin said at the expanded-format talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in the Kremlin. The cooperation of the two nations will continue to develop for the benefit of the Chinese and Russian peoples, he added. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the conclusion of agreements on the promotion and mutual protection of investments between Russia and China.

“Today we will sign updated intergovernmental agreements on the promotion and mutual protection of investments, which, I am sure, will have a positive impact on the formation of a more favorable business environment and will give a serious impetus to the development of our economic cooperation,” Putin said. Russia has become the world’s top importer of Chinese cars, the president said, adding that Russia is also ready to expand the range of Russian agricultural products to China. “For our part, we intend to continue to create comfortable conditions for the activities of companies from China in Russia,” the president said. Additionally, Putin said that Russia and China intend to further modernize the transport infrastructure. Putin also proposed to review in detail practical aspects of China-Russia cooperation.

“Mr. Xi Jinping, dear friend, distinguished colleagues, today at the expanded talks with the participation of delegations, we will review in detail the practical aspects of our cooperation in various areas. Traditionally, the chairmen of the five intergovernmental commissions from both sides will report on the work of the five intergovernmental commissions, and our foreign ministers will discuss cooperation in the global arena,” Putin said at the beginning of the expanded talks. The Russian leader also said that he and Xi Jinping held an in-depth, meaningful exchange of views and outlined plans for future work during the narrow-format talks earlier in the day. “The governments of our countries are working effectively. Systematic measures are being taken that will increase the level of financial and technical independence of our cooperation,” Putin added.

Read more …

“This isn’t about nostalgia – it’s about remembering what was at stake and why that memory mattered. Without a renewed commitment to these principles, no amount of military hardware or technical measures will ensure lasting global stability.”

The West Is Dismantling The Foundations of 1945 (Lukyanov)

Eighty years is a long time. Over such a span, the world changes almost beyond recognition, and events that once felt close fade into legend. Yet while history may become distant, its imprint remains. The Second World War created a political order that shaped global affairs for decades – an order many assumed was permanent. But today, the world is shifting rapidly and irreversibly. The events of the first half of the 20th century are no less significant, but their role in contemporary politics is no longer the same. The war’s outcome, culminating in the defeat of Nazism, defined the modern world order. In many ways, it was seen as a near-perfect struggle: a battle against an unquestionably aggressive and criminal regime that forced nations with deep-seated ideological differences to set aside their disputes.

The Allied powers – divided by political systems and long-standing mistrust – found themselves united by necessity. None of them entered this alliance out of pure goodwill; pre-war diplomacy was focused on self-preservation and maneuvering to deflect the worst consequences elsewhere. Yet when the existential threat became clear, those ideological rifts were temporarily bridged. It was precisely because of this that the post-war order proved so resilient. This framework weathered the storms of the Cold War and even lingered into the early 21st century, despite major shifts in the global balance of power. What helped hold it together was a shared moral and ideological narrative: the war was seen as a fight against absolute evil, a rare moment when the divisions between the Allies seemed secondary to their common cause. This consensus – centered around the defeat of Nazism and symbolized by milestones like the Nuremberg Trials – gave moral legitimacy to the post-war order.

But in the 21st century, that shared narrative has started to fray. As it weakens, so too does the stability of the world order it helped create. One key reason lies in Europe’s own internal transformations. In the post-Cold War era, Eastern European countries – long vocal about their dual suffering under both Nazi and Soviet regimes – have pushed a revisionist interpretation of the war. These nations increasingly define themselves as victims of “two totalitarianisms,” seeking to place the Soviet Union alongside Nazi Germany as a perpetrator of wartime crimes. This framing undermines the established consensus, which had placed the Holocaust at the moral center of the conflict and recognized European nations’ own complicity in allowing it to happen.

The growing influence of Eastern European perspectives has had a ripple effect. It has allowed Western Europe to quietly dilute its own wartime guilt, redistributing blame and reshaping collective memory. The result? An erosion of the political and moral foundations established in 1945. Ironically, this revisionism – while often framed as a push for greater historical “balance” – weakens the very liberal world order that Western powers claim to uphold. After all, institutions like the United Nations, a pillar of that order, were built on the moral and legal framework forged by the Allies’ victory. The Soviet Union’s enormous wartime contribution, and its political weight, were integral to this architecture. As the consensus around these truths crumbles, so too do the norms and structures that arose from them.

A second, subtler factor has also contributed to the unraveling. Over eight decades, the global political map has been redrawn. The end of colonialism brought dozens of new states into existence, and today’s United Nations has nearly double the membership it did at its founding. While the Second World War undeniably affected nearly every corner of humanity, many of the soldiers from the so-called Global South fought under the banners of their colonial rulers. For them, the war’s meaning was often less about defeating fascism and more about the contradictions of fighting for freedom abroad while being denied it at home.

This perspective reshapes historical memory. For example, movements seeking independence from Britain or France sometimes viewed the Axis powers not as allies, but as leverage points – symbols of the cracks in the colonial system. Thus, while the war remains significant globally, its interpretation varies. In Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America, the milestones of the 20th century look different from those commonly accepted in the Northern Hemisphere. Unlike Europe, these regions aren’t pushing outright historical revisionism, but their priorities and narratives diverge from the Euro-Atlantic view. None of this erases the war’s importance. The Second World War remains a foundational event in international politics.

The decades of relative peace that followed were built on a clear understanding: such devastation must never be repeated. A combination of legal norms, diplomatic frameworks, and nuclear deterrence worked to uphold that principle. The Cold War, while dangerous, was defined by its avoidance of direct superpower conflict. Its success in averting World War III was no small achievement. But today, that post-war toolkit is in crisis. The institutions and agreements that once guaranteed stability are fraying. To prevent a complete breakdown, we must look back to the ideological and moral consensus that once united the world’s major powers. This isn’t about nostalgia – it’s about remembering what was at stake and why that memory mattered. Without a renewed commitment to these principles, no amount of military hardware or technical measures will ensure lasting global stability.

Read more …

“..that day when Nigel Farage, in the European Parliament, looked then Commission President Herman van Rompuy in the eye and asked him: “Who the hell do you think you are?”

Von der Leyen Has No Business Telling Vucic And Fico Where They Can Go (Borges)

Come May 9th, Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic and Slovak prime minister Robert Fico will stride into Moscow’s Red Square for the Victory Day parade, marking 80 years since the defeat of Hitler’s Germany and of the final destruction of the odious creed of Nazism. Their decision, a bold assertion of sovereign prerogative, has drawn the EU’s wrath. Threats of sanctions, diplomatic ostracism, and new obstacles for Serbia’s future membership of the Union have predictably followed; as always, the EU mandarinate has no qualms about showing just how hostile to national democracy it is. The episode really brings to mind that day when Nigel Farage, in the European Parliament, looked then Commission President Herman van Rompuy in the eye and asked him: “Who the hell do you think you are?”

The EU’s reaction to Vucic and Fico’s sovereign decision is a study in arrogance. Kaja Kallas, the bloc’s foreign policy czar, warned that attending Moscow’s parade would carry “consequences”, threatening to stall Serbia’s EU membership and scolding Slovakia, a member state, for daring to chart its own course. Estonian diplomat Jonatan Vseviov called the event a “test of alignment,” as if sovereign nations must genuflect to Brussels’ edicts or face punishment. This is not partnership; it is diktat. The EU, which in 2022 urged members to boycott Russian-hosted events, now brandishes that stance as a whip. Fico, defiant, declared that “No one dictates my travel,” while Vucic stressed that he would “proudly represent Serbia” in the event. Their resolve is a rebuke to a bloc that persistently—and intolerably—mistakes coercion for unity.

Brussels’ threats only bolster the argument for Vucic and Fico’s presence. You don’t need to be a Russophile to remember that, whatever their faults and despite the crimes of the post-1945 division of Europe, the Russians were ultimately on the good side of World War Two. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact notwithstanding, they did storm the Berlin Reichstag. It is morally repugnant that, 80 years after the liberation of Auschwitz and so many other death camps, Brussels is trying to prevent European leaders from paying their fair tribute to the more than 20 million Russians who, alongside millions of British, Commonwealth, and American servicemen, fought and fell in the battle against Nazism. For Serbia and Slovakia, attending is an act of historical gratitude to those who saved both nations from genocidal occupation, not a statement on contemporary geopolitics. The EU’s attempt to paint participation as a betrayal ignores this context, weaponising history to enforce conformity. It is also an act of arrogance wholly out of touch with the spirit of the times, even more absurd at a time when the Russian and American presidents are sharing envoys in an effort to return peace to a much bloodied Ukraine.

The EU’s conduct reveals its true face: that of a prison of nations, stifling the autonomy of members and aspirants alike. Slovakia, despite its EU membership, is lectured to as if foreign policy were Brussels’ domain, not the inalienable right of the Slovak people. Serbia, a candidate for over a decade, faces ultimatums to abandon its independent stance, with accession talks hostage to compliance. This is no union of equals but a bureaucratic empire, demanding ideological lockstep over sovereignty. The bloc’s pressure on Serbia mirrors its treatment of Hungary’s Viktor Orban, whose pragmatic diplomacy has been studiously vilified by the Commission’s propaganda machine. The EU’s “solidarity” is a sham, a one-way demand that silences dissent and belittles smaller states’ histories, preferences, and aspirations. Indeed, after this, why would Serbia want to join at all? Why would anyone?

It is no different for the other European nations still exposed to Brussels’ whims. Consider the consequences if Fico had not stood his ground. What nation worthy of the name could accept the institutionalisation of the principle that it is not their national, elected representatives, but a class of foreign, unelected imperial functionaries, who is to decide on our foreign policy, where our leaders go or don’t, or how to vote at the United Nations Security Council? Could anyone accept an EU in which, say, Meloni is bullied for daring to visit Washington against the desires of Mrs. Kallas? What believer in national sovereignty could accept that Mr. Orbán, for instance, is prevented from flying to Israel—or from inviting the Israeli Prime Minister to Budapest—simply because of the EU mandarinate’s known hostility for that country?

Fico
https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1920344805902856593
https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1920434001728164184

Read more …

Not everyone agrees.

Kennedy Defends Casey Means’ Nomination For Surgeon General Amid Backlash (JTN)

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday defended Casey Means’ nomination for surgeon general on social media, after the nomination faced serious backlash. President Donald Trump nominated Means for the post after withdrawing Janette Nesheiwat’s nomination over allegations she inflated her credentials by claiming she had a degree from the University of Arkansas School of Medicine, when she actually graduated from a medical school in the Caribbean instead and did her residency in Arkansas. Means has largely been criticized over her reputation as a “wellness influencer” and her lack of experience in public health administration. Means graduated from Stanford medical school, but dropped out of her surgical residency as a head and neck surgeon in her fifth year to practice functional medicine instead.

Kennedy claimed that the backlash over Means’ nomination “reveal[s] just how far off course our healthcare conversations have veered,” and that she was the perfect replacement because she left the traditional medical system, not in spite of it. “Casey has excelled in every endeavor she has undertaken,” Kennedy wrote on X. “She had the courage to leave traditional medicine because she realized her patients weren’t getting better. The attacks that Casey is unqualified because she left the medical system completely miss the point of what we are trying to accomplish with [Make America Healthy Again]. “Her leadership has inspired many doctors to reform the system and forge a new path away from sick care, which fills corporate coffers, and toward health care, which enriches all of us,” he added.

Kennedy also applauded Means’ background as a “stand out” at Stanford, her achievement of creating a business and writing a New York Times best-selling book, which he credits as helping to inspire his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. “This ability of Casey’s to inspire Americans to rethink our healthcare system is also an existential threat to the status quo interests, which profit from sickness,” he said. “Every day, I wake up emboldened to drive change because I know the support of MAHA moms has my back. Casey has played an integral role in galvanizing these moms. “Casey will help me ensure American children will be less medicated and better-fed — and significantly healthier — during the next four years. She will be the best Surgeon General in American history,” he concluded. Means will still need to be confirmed by the United States Senate.

Latypova

Read more …

it’s piling up. What’s behind that?

Some of Hegseth’s Passwords Exposed in Cyberattacks, Shown on Internet (Sp.)

A number of passwords that Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth used to register for various websites have been compromised in cyberattacks and are available online, the New York Times reported. The report said this raises new questions about Hegseth’s use of personal devices to share military information. According to the report, the US secretary of defense probably did not use the exposed passwords for sensitive accounts, but did use at least one password multiple times for personal email accounts. It said at least one of the passwords was a simple combination of letters followed by numbers, possibly representing initials and a date. The same password was exposed in two separate personal email account breaches in 2017 and 2018.

According to cybersecurity experts, as Hegseth’s phone number is easily found online, it could be a potential target for hackers and foreign intelligence agencies. On March 24, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic editor-in-chief, revealed in an article that he was accidentally added by then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz to a private chat on the Signal app regarding impending strikes on the Houthis in Yemen. According to Goldberg, the chat included senior officials such as Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. Goldberg presented screenshots of the correspondence, in which the Pentagon chief, several hours before the start of the operation, reports on the types of aircraft and targets, which, according to the journalist, could threaten servicemen if leaked.

Read more …

“..a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession—a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it.”

Western Canada Puts the Rest of Canada on Notice (David Solway)

Though diehard loyalists will disagree, it is now time for Western Canada, in particular Alberta, to get its revolutionary act together. There is no longer any doubt that Canada is a broken, dysfunctional country, a disjointed collection of ten semi-independent provinces and three sparsely populated northern territories, superposed upon a chasm-wide divide between the East-Central “Laurentian” elite of bankers, Crown corporations, government agencies, media Jacobins and powerful political families on one side and the agricultural and energy-producing, partially rural-based, Texan-like, hardworking and self-reliant prairie West on the other. The West was never fully integrated into the Confederation as an equal partner, being consistently exploited by the Upper Canadian Anglo-Presbyterians, Québécois grandees, and their descendants who still rule the upper tier of Canadian politics.

In his 1954 book “Social Credit and Federal Power in Canada,” political scientist James Mallory described the Prairie additions to the nation as “provinces in the Roman sense.” The Prairie provinces were regions dominated by the administrative center in the East to whom they owed fealty and paid tribute. Similarly, in his recent C2C essay on Alberta’s future, University of Calgary professor Barry Cooper explains: “Ottawa acted as a new Rome on the Rideau.” The Western provinces “existed to strengthen and benefit Laurentian Canada by analogy with Roman Italy, and to enrich its leading citizens.” It is appropriate in this connection to recall the policy recommendations of Clifford Sifton, a cabinet member in Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberal government from 1896 to 1905.

As J.W. Dafoe writes in his biography, “CLIFFORD SIFTON in Relation to HIS TIMES,” Sifton was responsible for immigration to the Prairie, what he called the Last Best West, and defended the “stalwart peasants in sheep-skin coats” who were turning some of the most difficult areas of the West into productive farms. Yet he plainly had a change of heart, unless his real intentions were covert. In a speech to Parliament, quoted by the Alberta Prosperity Project, Sifton said: “We desire, and all Canadian Patriots desire, that the great trade of the prairies shall go to enrich our people to the East, to build up our factories and our places of work.” The fact is not in dispute. In the immortal words of the late, Liberal “rainmaker” Keith Davey, “Screw the West. We’ll take the rest,”—which makes neither economic nor practical sense.

In any event, Alberta and the Prairie West, Canada’s food and energy breadbasket, have gotten a raw deal from the central establishment since their inception as part of the Dominion. Tensions are now about to reach a boiling point. No demon that was ever foaled is or was as perilous for Canadian unity as Mark Carney, except perhaps for Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whose 1980 National Energy Program (NEP), as noted, critically depressed Alberta’s economy. Carney is demonstrably bad news for the prairie West, and the spirit of independence is now circulating in Alberta and Saskatchewan. As Preston Manning, one of Canada’s most influential public figures and a force for good, wrote, “Voters, particularly in central and Atlantic Canada, need to recognize that a vote for the Carney Liberals is a vote for Western secession—a vote for the breakup of Canada as we know it.” Unfortunately, it’s rather too late now. The people have misspoken.

Carney’s plans are well known, as touched on above: caps on oil and gas emissions, a phased-in fossil fuel ban, a hidden tax on heavy industry, no more pipelines (Bill C-69), increased investment in failed renewables, a continued Tanker Ban, and more. He makes this clear in his 500-page globalist manual for national destruction, “Values.” A meme making the rounds these days has to do with Justin Trudeau rhetorically asking the country: “Miss me now?” Of course, Trudeau was merely Carney’s stooge, a wavy-haired soyboy the country took to its bosom. His non-telegenic master is now in full control, his aura as a cosmopolitan banker proving irresistible to the average Canadian voter. As things now stand, and as they have stood since the incorporation of Alberta and Saskatchewan into the Confederation in 1905, the federal state will persist in feeding parasitically off the West while paradoxically hampering the very infrastructure that supports it.

Read more …

Let’s bring back Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. He knows a thing or two.

Trump’s Ultimate Troll Move Would Send DC Leftists Into Meltdown (Margolis)

Last week, I wrote about how Trump’s pick of Mike Waltz for UN ambassador was the ultimate trolling of the left. I even suggested that Trump could up the ante by nominating Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to replace Waltz. Flynn, a seasoned intel veteran, was one of the earliest and most high-profile victims of the Democrats’ Russia hoax. Whether Trump goes that route remains to be seen, but it would be a power play.And it looks like Flynn is on board. During an interview on “The Benny Show,” with Benny Johnson, Flynn declared he’s prepared to return to the role of national security advisor under President Trump—if called upon. Flynn, who briefly held the post at the start of Trump’s first term before being railroaded by the Deep State, left little doubt about his willingness to serve again.

“I am ready to serve,” Flynn said, referencing a post he made on social media that stirred speculation about his return. “The first question—yes. The second question—no,” he added, confirming that while he hasn’t been contacted yet by Trump directly, his hat is firmly in the ring. “I’ve been watching everything, listening, and observing intensely,” Flynn explained. “We are in a place where we cannot afford to have, as Trump likes to say, unforced errors. We cannot afford to drop a glass ball right now.” Flynn emphasized that despite not being in government anymore, he has never stopped serving the country. “I’m serving now, Benny. I serve in just a different way… I’ve been engaging people in government. I’m still out doing stuff,” he said. “That’s my message to every American: How are you serving this country?”

With his extensive military and intelligence background, Flynn made clear he hasn’t retreated from public life. “I didn’t go off into the sunset and go, ‘Woe is me,’” he said. “I know we have great leaders out there… There are a lot of people who have reached out to me to help get their name put forward for some position in the government, and I’ve done that.” Flynn also didn’t mince words about the fear he believes his return would generate among entrenched bureaucrats and the media. “Yeah, is there a group of people in the Deep State that fear me? You’re dam* right they do. They fear me for a good reason,” he said. “The mainstream media—they would blow a gasket.”

When asked directly if he had any breaking news to share, Flynn reiterated his commitment to rejoin the fight: “I would say to you, Benny, that I am ready. I am ready to come out of that glass, that is for sure.” Flynn noted that while President Trump is already doing “wonderful things,” the ideological battle in America is far from over. “We are still in a massive, massive ideological war going on in this country,” he warned. “There aren’t going to be any friendlies if we get to another election and we lose the majority in the House of Representatives—never mind the next presidential election.”

Flynn
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1920196536555782325

Read more …

“..they were deliberately not counting people who surveyed that they were Trump voters in 2024. That was half the country.”

How Pollsters Rig the Numbers Against Trump (Victor Davis Hanson)

We’ve touched on polls before, but I don’t think I’ve seen anything quite as egregious in pollsters’ bias as recently when they apparently or supposedly or purportedly surveyed the first 100 days of President Donald Trump and the public reaction. Almost immediately headlines blared, “Worst First 100 Days in History.” “Trump Drops From 52 to 42.”Everybody was confounded because the economic news was pretty good. Job growth was just spectacular. Over 170,000 jobs. Inflation was down. Energy prices were down. Corporate profits were up. There was a movement on the trade question. Ukraine still—there was no bad news except the controversy and chaos of a counterrevolution. So, what were the pollsters trying to tell us? Or were they trying to manipulate us? And I think it’s the latter.

Larry Kudlow, for example, the Fox, former Fox Business—I think he still is at Fox. He pointed out that when he examined The New York Times and The Washington Post polls, they were deliberately not counting people who surveyed that they were Trump voters in 2024. That was half the country. They were only polling about a third. Think of that. A third of the people that said they voted for Trump they polled. Not half. So, of course, their results were going to be disputed or suspect. But here’s another thing. There were analyses after each of the 2016, the 2020, and the 2024 elections about the accuracy of polls, post facto, of the election. And we learned that they were way off in 2016. They said they had learned their lessons. They were way off in 2020. They said they learned their lesson. And they were way off in 2024.

And why are they way off? Because liberal pollsters—and that’s the majority of people who do these surveys—believe that if they create artificial leads for their Democratic candidates, it creates greater fundraising and momentum. Kind of the herd mentality. “Oh, Trump is down by six. I don’t wanna vote for him. Then he won’t win.” That’s the type of thing that they want to create. I’ll give you one example. The most egregious. The most egregious of all these polls was the NPR/PBS/Marist poll. They have Donald Trump just very unpopular after 100 days. Very unpopular. This is the now-defunded Corporation for Public Broadcasting, that umbrella organization from which this poll was funded and conducted.

Do we remember that poll? It was the one poll that came out the night before the 2024 election. They said that then-Vice President Kamala Harris would win by four points. And they said it was beyond the margin of error. And one of the pollsters said, “It’s her race to lose.” She lost by a point and a half. They were five and a half points. Did they apologize? No. Here they are again. And David Plouffe, one of the directors of the Harris campaign, just recently came out and said, “Well, we had all these inside polls we never disclosed. But not one of them—not one of them—had Harris ever ahead of Trump.” Inside polls don’t lie because you pay somebody to tell you the truth. Nothing will get you fired and lose income quicker than to lie about a poll so that your candidate will be happy and rely on your false information. People don’t pay for that kind of stuff.

So, in other words, they knew the whole time—the Harris campaign—that 15 of those 20 polls, 19 polls that all had Harris winning the election, they were all false. Of course, they never said anything. And so, here’s my point. If you look at the polls that were the most accurate—Mark Penn was very accurate. He’s a Democratic pollster. But especially, the Rasmussen poll and the Insider Advantage and the Trafalgar poll. They joined together and they had a 100-day survey. Rasmussen—each day of the 100-day period that he’s issued a poll. And guess what? They have Trump ahead by anywhere from two to three points after 100 days. And they were the most accurate.

And yet, what do these news outlets say that Trump—it’s a disaster. That he’s polling—no. He’s polling very well. Things are going very well. The pollsters that indicate that people support him are the only pollsters that have any reputation after this decade-long polling disaster in which their prejudices, their biases, and their hatred of Donald Trump affected their results. And they were effectively in league with the Democratic candidate to create momentum rather than to adhere to a spirit of professionalism and honor.

Read more …

According to some, Trump and Musk run a government for billionaires.

Trump Urges GOP To Raise Taxes On The Wealthy To Fund Economic Agenda (ZH)

President Donald Trump is urging Republican lawmakers to raise taxes on some of the wealthiest Americans as part of his sweeping new economic package – a move that US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick says he’s ‘in favor’ of doing. According to individuals familiar with the discussions, Trump is pushing for the creation of a new 39.6 percent tax bracket for individuals earning at least $2.5 million annually or couples making $5 million. The current top rate stands at 37 percent. If enacted, the measure would restore the top marginal rate to its pre-2017 level, effectively rolling back a key piece of President Trump’s own first-term tax cuts. According to Bloomberg, Trump made his case in a phone call Wednesday with House Speaker Mike Johnson, where he also reiterated support for ending the carried interest tax break – a longstanding benefit claimed by private equity and venture capital managers, one source said.

Representative Jason Smith, the Missouri Republican who chairs the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, is expected to meet with President Trump on Friday. A congressional aide said Smith plans to assure the president that the forthcoming tax bill ‘will deliver on the president’s priorities,’ according to the aide. While the proposal’s full contours remain under negotiation, it is not yet clear whether it would include an expansion of the existing small business income exemption under the individual tax code. The push to raise the top rate comes as House Republicans face mounting fiscal pressure in drafting what President Trump has labeled the “one big beautiful bill” — a multi-trillion-dollar package aimed at extending the 2017 tax cuts while enacting a range of new promises, including eliminating taxes on tips and overtime pay.

To finance the plan, GOP leaders have struggled to find consensus on cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, prompting President Trump to float alternatives. Despite concerns that taxing high earners could harm Republicans politically or drive wealth abroad, President Trump has increasingly suggested such a move might be necessary. Raising taxes goes against long-standing Republican orthodoxy. Trump’s willingness to propose a tax hike for millionaires demonstrates how much he has remade the GOP in his own populist image. Top Republicans have balked at other proposals that would raise levies on affluent households. -Bloomberg “Anytime the president asks for something, we will consider it,” said Representative Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, a member of the House tax-writing committee. He confirmed that both the new top rate and carried interest repeal are “under discussion” but emphasized that “there is no agreement yet.”

In the Senate, the reaction has been more measured. Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday that he’s “not excited” about the tax hike but acknowledged that “there are a number of people in both the House and the Senate who are.” “If the president weighs in in favor of it,” Crapo added, “then that’s going to be a big factor that we have to take into consideration.” As Republicans weigh how to advance President Trump’s second-term tax ambitions, the question of who pays — and how much — is shaping up to be a defining test of the president’s enduring sway over the party’s economic direction.

Read more …

US carmakers are complaining about conditions for the “first 100,000 U.K. made cars coming to America”. As for US beef, let RFK tell us what’s in it.

Trump’s Unprecedented Trade Deal With Britain (Victoria Taft)

The first of the cascade of trade and tariff deals expected under the new Trump administration was announced in the Oval Office on Thursday. The “unprecedented” deal was the first time in decades that American producers will have freer and “streamlined customs” access to the U.K. markets. The announcement allows the sale of U.S. beef into the U.K. for the first time in decades and ensures an increase in the purchase of Boeing commercial jetliners. Flanked by Vice President J.D. Vance and on a conference call with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, President Donald Trump announced an agreement “worth billions of dollars” with the U.K. that reconfigures tariff prices on goods, expands the market for American farmers and ranchers, and added a phalanx of Boeing jetliners to that nation’s commercial fleet. The Trump White House called it “a breakthrough” and “a good deal.”

The “unprecedented” deal not only includes U.S. tariffs but also a reduction in tariffs by the U.K. The deal introduces a reset of the baseline framework for trade, which will create a $5 billion in exports opportunities for American farmers, ranchers, and other producers can sell into the U.K. That includes beef. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said that the beef deal with “exponentially” increase the amount of beef that ranchers sell. The U.K. has effectively cut off U.S. beef supply for nearly 40 years due to added hormones and completely cut off U.S.-produced beef 20 years ago due to BSE or mad cow disease concerns. In another win for farmers, Rollins announced that ethanol tariffs were brought to zero percent from an initial 19% announced. In a statement, the president said, “The U.K. will reduce or eliminate numerous non-tariff barriers that unfairly discriminated against American products.”

Remarkably, the two countries also announced the creation of a “trading zone” between them. The initial deal also raises about $6 billion in revenue from the 10% tariffs imposed by the U.S. on U.K. imported products and creates a supply chain between the two countries for pharmaceuticals and plane parts. Trump initially announced a 25% tariff on many British products, and under this deal he reduced some of those to 10%, including adjustments to tariffs on steel and aluminum. He also reduced tariffs from 25% to 10% on the first 100,000 U.K. made cars coming to America. Some of America’s most beloved luxury cars come from the U.K., including Rolls-Royce, Aston Martin, Rover, McLaren, Bentley, Lotus, MG, and Jaguar. In addition to opening markets for American farmers and ranchers, Trump announced an increase in the number of jetliners that would be purchased by British companies, without naming them.

British airlines already had 18 Boeing planes on order before the announced deal. The new deal alludes to a $10 billion order, but doesn’t specify which U.K. airlines would be taking delivery. Simple Flying reports that “there are only two UK airlines that could be in the running for placing such a big Boeing order.” “In October 2023, frequent flyer site Head For Points wrote that IAG, the parent company of British Airways, Iberia, and others, had been in contact with both Airbus and Boeing about further wide-body purchases to replace its older Boeing 777s,” the publication reported. It should be noted that the U.K. companies previously had a stake in Airbus, which is the rival to Boeing’s commercial business, but divested from the airline in 2006. Airbus is owned by several other European countries. Trump noted that the announcement of the deal on Thursday fell on the 80th anniversary of Victory Day for World War II.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has recently said that Trump has done an extraordinary job of creating leverage where there was none before. “President Trump creates what I would call strategic uncertainty in the negotiations,” he told Fox Business. “Nobody’s better at creating this leverage than President Trump,” he said. There’s no one better “at giving himself maximum leverage.” The United States has had near-zero tariffs with the United Kingdom before Trump came along, and now Britain has opened up its markets to American farmers, ranchers, and airplanes more than ever before. As Trump put it Thursday at the announcement in the Oval Office, “It can’t be understated… how important this deal is and what this means to American farmers and ranchers.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Shavo
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1920341642009096680

99

Mama bear

Underground

https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1920159970655391818

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

May 082025
 


Edouard Vuillard The two sisters 1899

 

Russia’s 72-hour ‘Victory Day’ Truce Begins (RT)
Trump Warns of ‘Decisions’ on Russia-Ukraine Talks (RT)
Von der Leyen Calls On EU To Speed Up Ukrainian Entry (RT)
EU Parliament Head Threatens To Sue von der Leyen (Sp.)
‘Absolute Insanity’ – Hungary Slams EU Plan To Halt Russian Energy Imports (RT)
Slovakia’s Fico Calls EU’s Refusal of Russian Fuel ‘Economic Suicide’ (Sp.)
New German Chancellor Tells US To ‘Stay Out’ of Berlin’s Affairs (RT)
Who der Leyen: EU’s Major, Unfixable Problem With Its Foreign Policy (Marsden)
Proof That Polls Showing Trump Underwater Are Bogus (Margolis)
President Trump’s Most Loyal Supporters: Hispanics (Victor Davis Hanson)
Yemen – US Concedes Maritime Defeat (MoA)
Canadian PM Asks Trump To Rein In His Taunts (RT)
Trump Administration Asks for Help in Uncovering Big Tech Censorship (Stepman)
Confirming Trump’s Court Nominees ‘Priority’ for Judiciary Committee (DS)
Pete Hegseth: Today’s Decisions and Tomorrow’s Military (Zito)
Pakistan Closes Airspace For 48 Hours, Authorizes Response To Indian Attack (ZH)
The Russia-Ukraine Lesson India Must Learn From Its Pakistan Standoff (Suchkov)
‘Prince Andrew Was F*ing Underage Girls’ – James O’ Keefe (ZH)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1920144368599552162

https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1919787566317908125

https://twitter.com/BRICSinfo/status/1919770832135491818
https://twitter.com/BellaVLiberman/status/1919896141505737188
https://twitter.com/SMO_VZ/status/1919902855655293265

https://twitter.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1919745461730078828

https://twitter.com/SMO_VZ/status/1920032150537056657

Ritter

Bondi

https://twitter.com/ricwe123/status/1919814308180926622

 

 

 

 

Predictable: Putin declares a truce. Zelensky refuses. Ukraine violates the truce terms. Ukraine and the entire western press claim Russia itself broke the truce.

Russia’s 72-hour ‘Victory Day’ Truce Begins (RT)

A 72-hour ceasefire proposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin has officially come into effect, with Russian forces halting offensive operations from midnight on Thursday, despite a surge in Ukrainian drone attacks in the hours before the truce. The pause in fighting, set to last until midnight on May 10–11, is described as a humanitarian gesture marking the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany. The Kremlin says the ceasefire also aims to create space for direct peace talks with Ukraine, without preconditions. ”Yes, this is an initiative by the Russian side, by President Putin. It remains in force,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed on Wednesday, stressing that Moscow is committed to honoring the truce despite Ukraine’s record-breaking drone assault ahead of its start.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has refused to back the ceasefire, denouncing it as an “attempt at manipulation” and accusing Russia of using humanitarian overtures for tactical advantage. Instead of pausing hostilities, Kiev intensified its drone campaign, with high-ranking Russian diplomat Rodion Miroshnik stating that Ukrainian UAV strikes over the past week caused a record number of civilian casualties — 15 killed and 142 injured. Earlier in the week, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused Zelensky of engaging in “classic terrorist behavior” by threatening civilians in Russia while soliciting additional funding from Western donors.

Peskov condemned the continued attacks, accusing the “Kiev regime” of revealing “its essence and inclination toward terrorist actions.” He noted that Russian special services and the military are taking all necessary measures to ensure Victory Day events proceed safely across the country. Despite calls from some lawmakers for an “asymmetrical” response to the drone strikes, the Kremlin has reiterated its position: “All instructions have been given, there are no new elements here,” Peskov said when asked about potential retaliation during the ceasefire window. Victory Day, celebrated on May 9, commemorates the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945 and remains one of the most significant public holidays in Russia.

Read more …

Vance and Trump may claim that Russia asks for too much, but this didn’t start today. The situation is the culmination of three years of fighting. Which itself was the culmination of over 10 years of mostly violent ‘provocations’. Now, Russia wants to stop these provocations once and for all. Incorporating Crimea and the 4 regions into Russia is part of that. In the first peace talks 3 years ago Russia never talked about land. Only when it became clear the talks were fake, did it become an issue. And now there’s no going back. Russia can’t give away parts of its own territory.

Vance should do his homework.

Trump Warns of ‘Decisions’ on Russia-Ukraine Talks (RT)

President Donald Trump has expressed displeasure over the pace of the US-brokered negotiations with Russia and Ukraine regarding the current conflict, stating that decisions need to be reached soon. According to US Vice President J.D. Vance, Washington currently considers Russia’s demands for ending the conflict unacceptable. “The Russians are asking for a certain set of requirements, a certain set of concessions, in order to end the conflict. We think they’re asking for too much,” he said at a Munich Leaders Meeting in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. Trump was asked to comment on Vance’s statement in a press briefing in the White House later in the day. “It’s possible that he’s right,” the US president replied. “I’m not happy about it,” Trump said.

Senior figures in the current US administration, including the president himself, have stated that Washington may have to step back from trying to mediate talks over the Ukraine conflict if sufficient progress is not made. “At some point in time, it either has to be something that can happen or we all need to move on. That’ll be a decision the president will have to make,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News last week. Washington has reportedly prepared a fresh set of economic sanctions targeting Russia’s energy and banking sectors, as potential leverage in the talks.

Moscow has repeatedly declared that it remains open to peace talks with Kiev. Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced a 72-hour ceasefire around the upcoming Victory Day celebrations. Ukraine rejected the initiative, demanded an unconditional 30-day truce and increased UAV and missile attacks on Russia. Despite this, the ceasefire offer is still on the table, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Russia’s demands for ending the conflict have remained stable: Ukraine must demilitarize, denazify, abandon ambitions to join NATO, stay neutral and remain free of nuclear weapons. In addition, Kiev needs to recognize the Russian regions of Crimea, Kherson and Zaporozhye as well as the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, Moscow has stated.

Read more …

Either she goes, or the EU is finished. And she won’t go voluntarily.

Von der Leyen Calls On EU To Speed Up Ukrainian Entry (RT)

Ukraine EU accession talks should be launched in 2025, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stressed on Wednesday. She argued that such a step would enhance Kiev’s negotiating position against Moscow while also opening the door for more investments in the country’s military industry. Kiev has repeatedly expressed its desire to join the EU. However, Ukraine’s “immediate” accession has been consistently opposed by several member states. Hungary has voiced concerns over corruption, the treatment of ethnic minorities, and economic competition, particularly in agriculture. Other EU nations, including Slovakia, France, and Germany, have also expressed reservations, emphasizing that Kiev must meet existing reform benchmarks before talks proceed. Speaking at a Europe Day event on May 7, von der Leyen said that the EU’s current task is to “help Ukraine stand strong, defy Putin’s intimidations.”

“Today, I would like to focus on how we can do so, and on three priorities for our action. First, support Ukraine’s defense. Second, complete the phase-out of Russian fossil fuels. And third, accelerate Ukraine’s accession path to our Union.” She added that Brussels is “working hard with Ukraine to open the first cluster of accession talks, and to open all clusters in 2025.” While Russia has consistently rejected the idea of Ukraine joining NATO, its position on EU accession has been more restrained. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has stated that the country has a “sovereign right” to join the bloc, provided that it remains a matter of economic integration and not military alignment.

At the same time, Russian officials have increasingly warned that the EU is losing its purely civilian character. Peskov has accused the bloc of actively working to prolong the Ukraine conflict by repeatedly expressing its intention to keep supporting Kiev in its desire to “continue the war.” He has also criticized Brussels for undermining peace efforts by consistently portraying Russia as the bloc’s primary adversary. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had previously also stated that the EU was “becoming militarized at a record pace,” and claimed there was now “very little difference” between the EU and NATO.

Read more …

“..adoption of the Commission’s plan without a proper legal basis would end up “putting at risk democratic legitimacy by undermining Parliament’s legislative and scrutiny functions..”

EU Parliament Head Threatens To Sue von der Leyen (Sp.)

The European Parliament has warned the European Commission (EC) that it could take it to court if it bypasses EU lawmakers to create a €150 billion ($170 billion) loan program to boost defense spending across the bloc. In March, EC head Ursula von der Leyen unveiled a plan to raise €800 billion to expand military potential across the EU in response to what she described as “a threat coming from Russia” – a claim rejected by Moscow. To raise the money, the Commission used Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which allows member states in emergencies to approve proposals from the executive branch in Brussels without going through the usual process.

On Monday, European Parliament President Roberta Metsola sent a letter to von der Leyen, urging her to change the legal basis for the initiative, threatening to sue the EC if it fails to comply. The adoption of the Commission’s plan without a proper legal basis would end up “putting at risk democratic legitimacy by undermining Parliament’s legislative and scrutiny functions,” the letter read. The EC “will always be available to explain why Article 122 has been chosen as the appropriate legal basis,” its spokesman Thomas Regnier told Euronews. “[Western] Europe faces an unprecedented security threat.

As stated by President von der Leyen in her Political Guidelines, Article 122 will only be used in exceptional circumstances, as the ones we are currently living in,” Regnier stated. The €150 billion loan program is seen by the Commission as a cornerstone of its ‘Readiness 2030’ proposal to invest over €800 billion into defense across the bloc by the end of the decade when – as Brussels claims – Russia would be in a position to attack an EU-member country. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly rejected allegations that Moscow harbors aggressive intentions toward EU countries, calling it “nonsense” designed to alarm Western Europeans and legitimize major increases in defense budgets.

Read more …

“..uphold the right to source energy from where it reliably arrives and where it arrives at a low cost.”

‘Absolute Insanity’ – Hungary Slams EU Plan To Halt Russian Energy Imports (RT)

The European Commission’s plan to completely phase out Russian fuel imports violates the sovereignty of EU member states by depriving them of the right to choose their energy sources, according to Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto. Brussels has outlined plans to end the bloc’s energy reliance on Moscow by completely eliminating imports of oil, gas, and nuclear fuel in the coming years. Hungary obtains over 80% of its gas from Russia via pipeline, with LNG playing a supplementary role. Budapest has continued to strengthen its energy ties with Moscow despite the sanctions introduced by the EU in the wake of the Ukraine conflict.

“The forced, artificially ideological-based exclusion of natural gas, crude oil, and nuclear fuel originating from Russia will lead to severe price increases in Europe, seriously harming the sovereignty of European countries, and cause major difficulties for European companies,” Szijjarto said in a video he shared on his Facebook page on Tuesday, adding that “what was announced is absolute insanity.” “Everyone in Brussels has lost their common sense,” the foreign minister exclaimed, emphasizing that Budapest would not allow the European Commission (EC) to violate Hungary’s sovereignty and would “uphold the right to source energy from where it reliably arrives and where it arrives at a low cost.” Earlier in the day, the EC published a “roadmap” outlining its ambitious strategy to end reliance on Russian energy by the end of 2027.

The bloc’s executive branch said it would propose legislation in June requiring all member states to draft “national plans” to terminate their imports of Russian gas, nuclear fuel, and oil. Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico also criticized the plan, calling the proposal “economic suicide.” He added that Slovakia would push for changes in the legislative process. Brussels announced its intention to wean EU members off Russian energy shortly after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. Supplies of US liquefied natural gas (LNG) have since replaced much of the cheaper pipeline gas previously delivered by Russia. Although Russian pipeline gas supplies to the EU have plummeted, the bloc has been increasing its imports of LNG from the sanction-hit nation. Last year, Russia still accounted for around 19% of the EU’s total gas and LNG supply, according to the EC.

Read more …

“This is an economic suicide: to come to the point where [there is] no gas, no oil, no nuclear fuel, nothing [from Russia] just because some new iron curtain is being set up..”

Several EU countries denied Orban and Fico permission to use their airspace to go to Moscow tomorrow. EU countries!

Slovakia’s Fico Calls EU’s Refusal of Russian Fuel ‘Economic Suicide’ (Sp.)

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on Wednesday that the European Union’s desire to completely abandon Russian energy resources was economic suicide. On Tuesday, the European Commission presented the REPowerEU roadmap for ending Russian energy imports. It proposed a halt to all remaining Russian gas contracts by the end of 2027, as well as restrictions on imports of enriched uranium from Russia. “This is an economic suicide: to come to the point where [there is] no gas, no oil, no nuclear fuel, nothing [from Russia] just because some new iron curtain is being set up between the Western world and perhaps Russia and other countries,” Fico told a news conference.

The European Union’s desire to reject Russian energy resources is an “extremely dangerous game,” the prime minister said, adding that Slovakia would work to draw the European Commission’s attention to the risks associated with the decision. Earlier in the week, Fico said that by insisting on cutting off energy supplies from the east, the EU was creating conditions for further gas price hikes for political reasons. Slovak National Council Deputy Speaker Tibor Gaspar had previously told RIA Novosti that Bratislava was interested in further purchases of Russian energy resources, and this was due, among other things, to the orientation of capacities towards Russian raw materials.

Read more …

Double tongue: “Ten million AfD voters, you cannot ban them..” And then do it anyway…

New German Chancellor Tells US To ‘Stay Out’ of Berlin’s Affairs (RT)

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has told the US government to “stay out” of his nation’s domestic politics. It comes after Trump administration officials slammed the designation of Germany’s second-largest party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), as an “extremist” organization. Following the move last week by Berlin’s domestic intelligence agency, the BfV, US Vice President J.D. Vance said the “German establishment” had “rebuilt” the Berlin Wall. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in turn, declared that the EU’s largest economy has become “a tyranny in disguise” and called upon the German authorities to change course. Merz, who was elected chancellor only after failing his first confirmation vote in parliament, told the broadcaster ZDF on Tuesday that “absurd observations” were emanating from Washington regarding the treatment of the right-wing party AfD by German authorities.

The chancellor stressed he “would like to encourage the American government… to largely stay out of” German domestic politics. The 69-year-old politician noted that he “did not interfere in the American election campaign” last year, which ended with Trump winning a second term in the White House. He also expressed his belief that US politicians should not support AfD because they “can clearly distinguish between extremist parties and parties of the political center.” Merz said he is planning a phone call with Trump on Thursday, with their first face-to-face meeting set for the NATO summit in the Hague on June 24 and 25.

When asked about the possibility of AfD being outlawed in Germany altogether, the chancellor said the German government needed to show restraint on the issue. “Ten million AfD voters, you cannot ban them,” Merz argued. He said the ruling CDU/CSU alliance should instead focus on addressing the causes pushing people to vote for the right-wing party. AfD demands tighter immigration and asylum laws and opposes the “woke agenda.” It achieved its best ever result in February’s election, clinching 20.8% of the vote and finishing second after CDU/CSU, which got 28.5%. The party filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging the BfV’s decision to classify it an “extremist” organization.

Read more …

“Her unity-at-any-cost talk really just means that dissent from countries that disagree is quashed. And those dissenters are typically those with ideological views and approaches similar to Trump’s..”

Who der Leyen: EU’s Major, Unfixable Problem With Its Foreign Policy (Marsden)

This one stings. When asked how the EU might dodge US President Donald Trump’s tariff hammer, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent replied, “My observation… goes all the way back to [former US Secretary of State] Henry Kissinger’s statement: ‘When I call Europe, who do I call?’ So, we’re negotiating with a lot of different interests.” Translation: You can’t sit with us until you stop fighting at your own lunch table. Sure, the continent is tripping over its own policies and tumbling down an economic staircase, but at least everyone’s falling in sync. Brussels tightens the “unity” straitjacket, and they all cheer, or risk getting whacked back into line. Unity is the brand. Unity is the product. Unity is the hashtag. “Only together can we address the grave challenges we face,” unelected European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in January 2024.

“It is thanks to all this that in the last five years, Europe has weathered the fiercest storm in our economic history. And we overcame an unprecedented energy crisis. We did this together, and we can do it again. And we have the political will. Because when Europe is united, it gets things done,” she said in an address earlier this year at the Davos World Economic Forum, explaining how solidarity will help the EU weather the problems created by its own policies. “The EU’s strength lies in its unity, including when confronted with major health crises. European solidarity, in sharing medical supplies, treating patients or helping repatriate citizens, and in the reconstruction of our economies, helped us to protect our citizens together and overcome the most difficult phases of the pandemic,” she said in 2023 about the Covid fiasco, during which she brokered a non-transparent deal for jabs with her pal, the CEO of Pfizer, via text messages that have since vanished.

Contracts which ultimately left EU member states on the hook even after they had no use for the jabs. “This 4th Ukraine meeting was another demonstration of European unity,” Queen Ursula posted a month ago on social media. Of course it was. What isn’t? Even just this week, in evoking fires in Israel and EU assistance, she wrote on social media that it was “EU solidarity in action.” Unity and solidarity are important to the EU in the same way that the concept of family is important to evoke every time two toddlers want to poke each other’s eyes out with crayons. As in, “you’re supposed to be brothers, so play nice!” All that helps to paper over the unfortunate history of family infighting and battlefield beatdowns. Enter Scott Bessent, politely suggesting that he’s not impressed by the EU’s unity thirst traps.

And that hits deep. It’s like telling someone that what they think is their very best feature is really their worst. Say, for example, you really love your own butt, have been spending years in the gym doing every kind of squat, lunges, hip thrusts, and you’re so proud of your butt – and then one day, someone you’re interested in is like, “You know, you should really work on those glutes more.” That’s exactly what Bessent’s comment is when he says that the problem with the EU is their lack of unity.

Nothing the US can do about it, he implies – just a little friendly feedback. Back to the gym, Brussels. And Queen Ursula must be fuming since she talks like it’s her best feature and she already spends all day and night obsessing over it. How is she possibly supposed to do more when she’s already maxed out on her unity obsession? Which is all superficial by the way. Her unity-at-any-cost talk really just means that dissent from countries that disagree is quashed. And those dissenters are typically those with ideological views and approaches similar to Trump’s that place their own country’s interests above those dictated by a supranational institution of global governance.

Read more …

“..while Trump’s critics continue to spin, exaggerate, or dismiss his rhetoric, voters are seeing something entirely different: results.”

Proof That Polls Showing Trump Underwater Are Bogus (Margolis)

While the corporate media keeps pushing the narrative that Donald Trump’s approval ratings are sinking, we’ve seen this act before. Remember 2024? Pollsters swore up and down that Kamala Harris was going to win in a landslide. But anyone who scrutinized the data knew those numbers were bogus. Now that Trump is back in office, the same game is playing out. The media’s obsession with tearing him down hasn’t faded one bit. So we’re flooded with polls from the same discredited pollsters who got 2024 so wrong — polls that claim Trump is “underwater” while simultaneously showing broad public approval of how he’s handling the issues that matter. Case in point: even CNN’s Harry Enten was forced to admit on Wednesday that Trump’s law-and-order message is hitting home with voters in a way Joe Biden never could, and the numbers back it up.

“It speaks to one of Trump’s best issues, right? The idea of Alcatraz — you think law and order, you think Donald Trump,” Enten said, driving home a point that’s almost too obvious to require analysis. On CNN, of all places, Enten presented data showing Trump with a positive net approval rating on crime, something that eluded Biden for his entire presidency. “Look at that,” Enten said. “At plus two points, far better than Joe Biden who was so far underwater. My goodness, he was setting records at minus 26 points. You rarely ever see it.” Yes, you read that correctly — while Biden sank to historic lows, Trump is now in positive territory. Not only that, but Trump’s crime approval is stronger now in his second term than it was during his first.

“We compared Donald Trump’s first term to now his second term,” Enten explained. “We see that Donald Trump’s net approval rating on handling crime is far better now at plus two points… than back in March of 2024 in which he was underwater at minus 13 points.” That’s a stunning 15-point improvement. In typical fashion, Trump’s messaging — often mocked by the media as outlandish or theatrical — is connecting with voters. Enten referenced Trump’s remarks about Alcatraz, saying, “Yes, I know it’s late-night fodder for a lot of different folks, but what it actually speaks to is Donald Trump focusing the American people’s attention on an issue in which they actually do like what he’s doing.”

Even more telling? The American public’s concern about crime is decreasing under Trump’s leadership. “It was 53% last year and look at where we are now. We’re at 47%,” Enten noted. “It’s the first time in about five years in which the percentage of Americans who worry a great deal about crime has actually dropped under the 50% mark.” That kind of drop isn’t just statistically significant; it’s politically potent. Enten emphasized that crime is one of just two issues where public concern declined by five points or more from 2024 to 2025, and it happened among both Democrats and Republicans.

So while Trump’s critics continue to spin, exaggerate, or dismiss his rhetoric, voters are seeing something entirely different: results. “I think Donald Trump is gonna continue on this law and order issue,” Enten concluded, “because the bottom line is, it is working for him.”Just as it was obvious during the campaign that Trump’s support far exceeded what the polls claimed, it’s clear now that his approval ratings are higher than what those same discredited pollsters were pushing last year.

Read more …

“Gulf of Arabia” and “Arabian Gulf” are predominately used in Middle Eastern countries.”

Trump To Announce US Will Call The Persian Gulf The Arabian Gulf (JTN)

President Trump is reportedly planning to announce the U.S. will refer to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf or the Gulf of Arabia during his trip to Saudi Arabia next week. Two U.S. officials told the Associated Press of Trump’s plan on condition of anonymity, according to a report Wednesday. The White House and the National Security Council didn’t immediately respond to the wire service’s requests for comment. Iran has claimed it has historic ties to the gulf that is off its southern coast, while Arab nations have pushed for a change to the geographic name of the body of water. The U.S. military has unilaterally referred to the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf in statements and images it releases for years. The Persian Gulf name has been widely used since the 16th century, but “Gulf of Arabia” and “Arabian Gulf” are predominately used in Middle Eastern countries.

The government of Iran, previously called Persia, in 2012 threatened to file a lawsuit against Google for its decision to not label the body of water at all on its maps. In the U.S., Google Maps labels the body of water as the Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf), while Apple Maps only says the Persian Gulf. Iran’s foreign minister took issue with the possible renaming of the gulf. “[P]olitically motivated attempts to alter the historically established name of the Persian Gulf are indicative of hostile intent toward Iran and its people, and are firmly condemned,” Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi wrote in a post on X on Wednesday. “Such biased actions are an affront to all Iranians, regardless of their background or place of residence.

Read more …

“..they have a more realistic, as all immigrant communities do, a realistic appraisal of what’s important and what’s peripheral. And right now, the Democratic Party is peripheral to the Hispanic community in general.”

President Trump’s Most Loyal Supporters: Hispanics (Victor Davis Hanson)

At the end of President Donald Trump’s first 100 days, there were a number of polls that came out. Most of them were liberal and most of them were negative. And as we have mentioned in the past, some of them who have a much more reliable history—such as the Rasmussen poll, the Insider Advantage poll, the Trafalgar poll—they all had Donald Trump, at the end of 100 days, with either roughly 50-50 approval ratings or even slightly above that, 48-46, 50-49. But my point is, in one of the daily Rasmussen polls, they had an astonishing figure, that they broke down Donald Trump’s support by ethnic category. And there were 39% of black Americans that expressed support for Donald Trump. That’s an astonishing number. Given that 95% of the news coverage, according to the Media Research Center, has been negative.

And yet here is a traditional Democratic constituency where 4 out of 10 people like what’s been going on. But even more astonishing is the ethnic constituency that expressed the highest approval of Donald Trump’s first 100 days was the Hispanic community. In fact, far above the so-called white community. How can that be possible? The Democratic Party had told us that closing the border and stopping the illegal entry of 10 to 12 million illegal aliens during the Biden administration—that was deeply unpopular to the Hispanic community. And then, the deportations of illegal aliens like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, for example, or Eduardo Flores-Ruiz that was in Judge Hannah Dugan’s courtroom, whom she tried to hide. He was the assaulter of three people, including women. This was supposed to be deeply unpopular. But it actually has the opposite effect.

And why would that be? The reason is that when 12 million people come in illegally and they gravitate to certain constituencies or enclaves, they usually feel more at home with fellow Spanish-speaking Americans. And where is that? That is along the Rio Grande Valley. That is in Texas. That is in parts of New Mexico. That is in the San Joaquin Valley. What am I getting at? What I’m getting at is that a group of elites in the Biden administration, for particular political purposes—and I’ll be frank here—I think they did want people to come in, both to serve as future constituents under the lax rules and protocols of early and mail-in voting, and also to grow the government and have more constituencies on welfare. But in any case, the price, the cost, the toll fell most heavily on Hispanic communities. These were the ones that were trying to get competitive Advanced Placement programs in their schools.

And suddenly they have English as a Second Language programs again. They were the ones at dialysis clinics, at emergency rooms that were swarmed with people who in some cases had never been to a doctor. And so, they bore the greatest brunt of it. They were in cities where the Biden administration flew people in at night from Mexico and then dispersed them in Hispanic communities. And so they were very angry. And why would so-called white people poll much more negatively against Trump’s first 100 days than Hispanics? It’s because the white elite had created an agenda under the Biden and Obama administration that was elitist. By that I mean—let’s face it—Sen. Bernie Sanders had to take out the word “millionaires” from his usual castigation of millionaires and billionaires. And it wasn’t just because he’s a millionaire now.

That is the trademark of the professional bicoastal classes. And they’re interested in issues that are not existential—at least not everyday existential. By that I mean global warming, the Green New Deal, transgendered men in women’s sports, international organizations—the U.N. But they’re not interested in what the Hispanic working classes are interested in. And that’s affordable gasoline, affordable power bills, good-paying jobs, schools that allow their children to be competitively educated, safety in their neighborhoods. And the idea that they should have some natural antipathy for illegal aliens just because they share the same language and maybe ethnic background—they don’t.

They’re just like anybody else that’s trying to make a living and has been ignored and shunned by the grandees of the Democratic Party. And so, they’re expressing support for an administration that is trying to get affordable energy prices, that is damning the high rise in crime, that is seeking to close the border and secure it, that is calling to account the elite universities that gouge the federal government. All of that appeals to people who have to work with their muscles. And many of the Hispanic community, they’re contractors or small business people. Many of them are professionals. But they have a more realistic, as all immigrant communities do, a realistic appraisal of what’s important and what’s peripheral. And right now, the Democratic Party is peripheral to the Hispanic community in general.

Read more …

“Houthi officials and supporters swiftly portrayed the deal as a major victory for the militia and a failure for Mr. Trump, spreading a social media hashtag that read “Yemen defeats America.”

Yemen – US Concedes Maritime Defeat (MoA)

Just two days ago I stated that the U.S. had lost its war against Ansar Allah in Yemen: The Houthi can not be defeated. Soon a U.S. ship will get hit. From there the war could easily escalate into a war against Iran. There is a good chance that the U.S. would lose it. It is high time for the Trump administration to pull back from its Yemen campaign. Last night Trump conceded that the campaign was lost. He order the U.S. fleet to retreat:
“Trump Says the U.S. Will Cease Strikes on Houthi Militants (archived) – NY Times, May 6 2025″. It was unclear whether the Houthis were going to stop impeding international shipping, which was the objective of the American bombing campaign. The United States and Houthis in Yemen reached a deal to halt American airstrikes against the group after the Iranian-backed militants agreed to cease attacks against American vessels in the Red Sea, President Trump and Omani mediators said Tuesday.

“They just don’t want to fight,” Mr. Trump said. “And we will honor that and we will stop the bombings. They have capitulated, but more importantly, we will take their word. They say they will not be blowing up ships anymore.” But despite his claim of success, it remained unclear whether the United States had achieved its objective of stopping the Houthis from impeding international shipping after a costly seven-week bombing campaign.” There is nothing ‘unclear’ about the objective which the U.S. has obviously not achieved. The Houthi will continue to attack Israel related shipping as well as the Zionist entity itself: “The Houthis themselves stopped short of declaring a full cease-fire, saying that they would continue to fight Israel. And Houthi officials and supporters swiftly portrayed the deal as a major victory for the militia and a failure for Mr. Trump, spreading a social media hashtag that read “Yemen defeats America.”

The U.S. Navy has long run out of military targets in Yemen. Its ships have emptied their magazines. They can not replenish at sea and need to go to a friendly harbor that has the appropriate equipment (Crete, Bahrain).
“Three F-18 Fighter Jets And Some 20+ Reaper Drones Were Lost During Fighting The Houthi:“
“A Navy fighter jet failed to land on an aircraft carrier and plummeted into the Red Sea on Tuesday, marking the fourth major mishap involving the vessel and the third loss of a fighter jet deployed with it since the warship left home last year … The latest incident, reported earlier by CNN, followed the loss of another jet, an F/A-18E, in an accident aboard the Truman last week in which the aircraft tumbled overboard after sailors aboard lost control of it while towing it in the ship’s hangar bay. A third fighter jet from the Truman was shot down accidentally over the Red Sea in December by another Navy warship, the USS Gettysburg, in an incident that triggered concerns about communication among warships and fighter jets in the region.

The Truman also was involved in a collision in the Mediterranean Sea in February, prompting the service to fire its commanding officer, Navy Capt. Dave Snowden. The U.S. Navy has spent over a billion dollar on ammunition on Yemen. It lost more than half a billion in flying equipment and managed to achieve nil. Others will take note of that record. The U.S. could have made this deal a month ago:

“A senior leader of Ansar Allah, commonly known as the Houthis, told Drop Site News that if the U.S. ends its campaign of air strikes against Yemen, Houthi forces will commit to halting all attacks on U.S. ships in the region. “We do not consider ourselves at war with the American people,” said Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a member of Ansar Allah’s political bureau and a longtime spokesperson for the Houthis. “If the U.S. stops targeting Yemen, we will cease our military operations against it.” Oman was, as usual, moderating talks between the U.S. and the Houthi. Iran was helpful in that it pressed for a deal. Trump claims that Ansar Allah will stop shooting at U.S. shipping. There was no civilian U.S. shipping in the Red Sea in the first place:

There are fewer than 200 U.S. commercial vessels. Only about 80 are engaged in global trade. The small U.S. commercial fleet compares to 5,500 active Chinese-flagged vessels. U.S. military shipping in the area is of no interests for the Houthi unless it is used to attack them. How much other shipping in the area will revive to its previous levels remains to be seen: Shipping volumes in the Red Sea continue to be depressed, currently around 50% lower than 2023 figures, according to data from SEB, a Swedish bank.

“The prospect of a ceasefire agreement and enhanced security suggests a likely resurgence in commercial shipping operations in the region,” shipping analysts at SEB suggested in a note to clients this morning, arguing that car carrier and container markets are projected to experience the most significant rebalancing. There is a lot of ambiguity as the Houthi will continue to target Israel related ships. Some might be owned by Israeli entities but are sailing under some other countries flag. Other ships may be held up or fired at because they carry goods designated for Israel. Until the war on Gaza ends, and the Houthi campaign stops, international insurance companies are likely to ask for higher premiums for any ship that wants to sail through the Red Sea. It will take months of quietness before insurance premiums and traffic through the Red Sea will come back to a normal level. Egyptian income losses from a lack of Suez Canal crossings will continue.

Read more …

“When you get rid of that artificially drawn line… when you look at that beautiful formation when it’s together, I’m a very artistic person,” Trump said, recalling his real estate developer background.”

Canadian PM Asks Trump To Rein In His Taunts (RT)

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has claimed he asked US President Donald Trump to stop taunting his country as the 51st state during their first meeting at the White House on Tuesday. Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of acquiring Canada and described its border with the US as “artificial.” During the meeting with Carney in the Oval Office, Trump reiterated that sentiment and said that a union between Canada and the US would be a “wonderful marriage” and could bring “tremendous” benefits. “When you get rid of that artificially drawn line… when you look at that beautiful formation when it’s together, I’m a very artistic person,” Trump said, recalling his real estate developer background.

Carney interjected by stating that “there are some places that are never for sale,” likening Canada to the Oval Office and Buckingham Palace. “Having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign the last several months, it’s not for sale, it won’t be for sale, ever,” the PM said, adding that the two nations could nevertheless work toward building a strong partnership together. Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Carney said he had asked Trump to stop using the term 51st state and described the comments as “not useful.” At the same time, he acknowledged that Trump is the US president and “he’ll say what he wants to say.” The meeting came days after Carney’s election victory, in which his Liberal Party secured a fourth consecutive term. Carney centered his campaign on attacking Trump over tariffs and his insistence on acquiring Canada.

At the beginning of their meeting, Trump congratulated the new prime minister and joked, “I think I was probably the greatest thing that happened to him.” Despite ongoing tensions over tariffs, which Trump said would stay in place regardless of what Carney said, both sides ultimately described the talks as positive. “Regardless of anything, we’re going to be friends with Canada,” the US president told reporters. Meanwhile, Carney called the discussions “wide-ranging” and “very constructive” and stated that trade negotiations would continue, including during the upcoming G7 summit in Canada’s Alberta province.

Read more …

Google runs an ad monopoly. A judge has confirmed as much. So yes, demonetized and shadow banned Right here, right this site.

Start there. Stop writing reports, do something. Then take it from there.

Trump Administration Asks for Help in Uncovering Big Tech Censorship (Stepman)

The Trump administration has vowed to root out Big Tech censorship that was openly practiced under former President Joe Biden. In 2021, Biden administration press secretary Jen Psaki—now a host for MSNBC—admitted that the government coordinated with Big Tech to weed out “misinformation” on social media platforms. “We are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team,” Psaki said at a 2021 press conference. “We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has since said that the Biden administration pressured Facebook to censor Americans.

“Basically, these people from the Biden administration would call up our team and, like, scream at them and curse,” Zuckerberg told podcast host Joe Rogan in January. “It just got to this point where we were like, ‘No, we’re not gonna, we’re not gonna take down things that are true. That’s ridiculous.’” While government coordination with Big Tech companies to censor Americans may be gone under President Donald Trump, the censorship problem remains. In early February, the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into Big Tech. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson announced that the agency would be looking into attempts by tech companies to censor on their platforms. “Big Tech censorship is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal. The FTC wants your help to investigate these potential violations of the law,” he wrote.

Big Tech companies should not be “bullying their users,” Ferguson said, “this inquiry will help the FTC better understand how these firms may have violated the law by silencing and intimidating Americans for speaking their minds.” Ferguson asked for public cooperation “from anyone who has been a victim of tech censorship (banning, demonetization, shadow banning, etc.), from employees of tech platforms, or from anyone else who can shed light on these practices and the ways in which they may violate the law.” The FTC said in a statement that the agency is interested in “understanding how consumers—including by potentially unfair or deceptive acts or practices, or potentially unfair methods of competition—have been harmed by the policies of tech firms.”

The FTC directed Americans with a complaint about Big Tech censorship to submit a comment to the agency by May 21. Heritage Action for America created a portal to direct a comment to the agency that can be accessed here. Once the comment period is over the comments will be posted at Regulations.gov. Heritage Action included some helpful tips for what to include in a comment to the FTC.
What platform censored you?
• How were you censored? (E.g., Labeled as misinformation? Content removed? Shadow banned? Demonetized? etc…)
• What was the impact on you, your family, employees, friends, or followers/clients?
• Did the platform tell you about their action to censor you? And did they provide a reasonable and specific explanation?
• Did the platform give you the option to appeal the censorship? What was the result?

Last week, Trump made an additional move to quash the censorship of Americans. He proposed in his budget request eliminating the disinformation offices and programs at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. “CISA was more focused on cooperating with Big Tech to target free speech than our nation’s critical systems,” the White House said in an “Ending Weaponization of the Federal Government” fact sheet, adding the agency’s disinformation offices “functioned as a hub in the Censorship Industrial Complex.”

Read more …

“..it’s important to move to fill those vacancies while there’s a Senate that is still going to be cooperative and not trying to put up the roadblocks..”

Confirming Trump’s Court Nominees ‘Priority’ for Judiciary Committee (DS)

Confirming President Donald Trump’s federal court nominees will be a “priority” for the Senate Judiciary Committee, says Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a member of that panel. “It’s certainly going to be a big priority for the Judiciary Committee,” Lee told The Daily Signal in a phone interview, “particularly once we get … a number of sub-Cabinet-level nominees processed.” “I do see that occupying more of the Judiciary Committee’s time over the next little while, and once those get through the pipeline, it will start occupying more time than it has on the Senate floor,” Lee continued. “This part of the process is just starting.” On Sunday night, Trump told The Daily Signal he would nominate federal judges “rapidly” and “try to get very good ones.” He subsequently nominated five judges Tuesday night, in addition to the one he nominated Thursday night.

Because Republicans were unable to retake control of the Senate in 2022, Trump will have less ability to reshape the federal judiciary than he did in his first term. Then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., pushed through 139 judges nominated by President Joe Biden, the third-highest total in U.S. history. That leaves Trump with just 46 current court vacancies, compared with 123 at the start of his first term. Still, Lee says, judicial appointments will be an ongoing effort over the next four years, “as it is with any administration where the president’s party is the same party that is the majority of the Senate.” The Utah senator praised Trump’s first-term judicial nominations and said he expects to see high-caliber judges nominated again.

“We will be very fortunate if the same standards for judicial nominees are followed during this second Trump administration,” Lee said. “I know of no reason to believe that they won’t be. If that’s the case, we’ll be in really good shape.” Trump had historically high court vacancies to fill in his first term and has historically low vacancies in his second, but each of those vacancies is still critical, said Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network. “Every one of those is crucially important, and it’s important to move to fill those vacancies while there’s a Senate that is still going to be cooperative and not trying to put up the roadblocks,” Severino told The Daily Signal. “If the Senate ever switched hands, that would certainly be the case.” Confirming Trump’s Court Nominees Will Be ‘Priority’ for Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lee Says.

Read more …

“When President Trump called me to take this job, he told me first—he told me two things. The first was, ‘Pete, you’re going to have to be tough as s— —tough.’ Boy, he was not kidding on that one.”

Pete Hegseth: Today’s Decisions and Tomorrow’s Military (Zito)

Maj. Gen. David Hill was standing a few feet from where the Black Hawk helicopter en route from the Defense Department would soon be landing, at the lush green fields of the Army War College. Hill is the commandant of the prestigious military institution and had been preparing for days for something rare around here: a visit from the secretary of defense. “I’ve been here for four years as the commandant of the Army War College. This is the first opportunity we’ve had to host the secretary of defense,” Hill said with a broad smile, adding, “It is pretty cool.” Hill said that having Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth come to rural Pennsylvania is important because of the history of the Carlisle Barracks, where the campus is located. “This is a really special place,” he said. “It’s a 268-year-old military encampment that predates our nation, and it’s been an integral part of our Army and our nation’s history since 1757. And since 1951, the United States Army War College has been housed here.”

Its mission is to preserve peace through intelligent preparation to repel aggression. At peak load, the student body is about 2,000. Its signature is a 10-month resident graduate degree program that certifies students in the highest level of joint professional military education. This year’s officer class drew not just U.S. military leaders from all branches and intelligence services—Hill said there are also military leaders attending from 77 different countries. “There are 31 European nations represented here, as well as most of the Indo-Pacific nations represented, such as India, Japan, Australia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia. There’s a half-dozen from the African continent and a similar number from South America and Central America. Ukraine is here, and we have an officer from Israel and Lebanon here,” Hill explained.

When Hegseth was minutes away, Hill left to greet the defense secretary and his team. As Hill walked away, he said, “Today is going to be a big day.” The handshake between Hill and Hegseth was warm. They motorcaded through the Claremont Gate and toward the Wheelock Bandstand, where 800 seats were set up outside for the defense secretary’s speech. The overflow crowd exceeded 1,000, leaving several hundred standing in the grass as Hegseth took to the podium just in front of the old bandstand. Whoever was running the sound turned up the volume for AC/DC entrance music. The senior military officers in attendance approved. “Who dialed up ‘Thunderstruck’? I didn’t choose it, but I like it. Please take your seats. It might have to become SOP,” Hegseth said as everyone in attendance, a sea of camouflage and uniforms, laughed. Hegseth was in his element: confident, assured, and far from Washington, D.C.

Hegseth was there to mark the first 100 days of the Trump administration and share what he has accomplished at the Department of Defense. He bluntly acknowledged it had been bumpy in the wake of a series of leaks that have resulted in resignations and firings, not to mention unsubstantiated rumors that President Donald Trump is about to fire him. “When President Trump called me to take this job, he told me first—he told me two things. The first was, ‘Pete, you’re going to have to be tough as s— —tough.’ Boy, he was not kidding on that one. This job requires a steel spine, and that’s fine,” he said. For the next 28 minutes, he discussed a policy blueprint and vision that this White House sees for the military. Afterward, in the same room where Army War College graduate and former five-star Gen. and President Dwight D. Eisenhower once gave a talk, Hegseth sat down with the Washington Examiner.

He spoke about his recent controversies, his mission to reshape the military, the robust growth each service branch has seen since Trump took office, and how faith has kept him grounded. Dressed in a navy-blue suit, with a crisp red, white, and blue pocket square, and dark socks with green Army warriors, Hegseth said coming here and being able to articulate the department’s focus at a hundred days while looking out at a group of men and women who are the future leaders of our formations meant a lot to him. Hegseth said he spoke to those in attendance about restoring the warrior ethos, rebuilding the military, and reestablishing deterrence. He said that these men and women were on board despite having come up in a military filled with a woke quota mindset.

Read more …

Someone stop this. It has to be Xi, right?

Pakistan Closes Airspace For 48 Hours, Authorizes Response To Indian Attack (ZH)

Though aerial fighting between the nuclear-armed rivals does not appear to be sustained and ongoing at this point, Pakistan has closed its airspace for nearly all flights on Wednesday, in the aftermath of the Indian cross-border strikes which killed at least 26 people – including a 3-year-old girl – and wounded at least 46 other people, Pakistani authorities say based on the latest revised death toll. International carriers have also canceled flights to the region, and access to social media, including X, was temporarily blocked in Pakistan amid the assault. Heavy shelling is being reported along the Line of Control (LOC) separating the historic enemy nations.

The true casualty toll could be higher, as a Pakistani militant chief targeted in the attacks on ‘terror camps’ said 10 of his relatives, including five children, were killed. The Islamist group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) was one of the groups targeted, and its leader Masood Azhar said his older sister, brother-in-law, his nephew and niece are among the dead. Pakistan says that civilians were harmed and targeted that mosques were hit across six locations in its territory, and so has the right to respond to aggression. Indian has said it attack nine terror sites, but has been careful to stipulate these were non-military locations, and is now seeking de-escalation. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has ordered his armed forces to prepare a plan for “self-defense” with “corresponding actions” in order “avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives”.

The order was issued after an emergency National Security Commitee (NSC) meeting on Wednesday. “Pakistan reserves the right to respond, in self-defense, at a time, place, and manner of its choosing to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and blatant violation of its sovereignty,” the NSC readout said. “The Armed Forces of Pakistan have duly been authorized to undertake corresponding actions in this regard.” Pakistan’s Government Security Committee has charged that India has “ignited an inferno in the region”. These do indeed seem to be fighting words.What India has dubbed ‘Operation Sindoor’ is intended to be limited, Indian leaders have said, but it’s highly questionable whether it was a ‘success’ – given that India lost at least one or possibly up to five fighter jets.

Read more …

“Why do you keep shooting? Business is done differently now.”

The Russia-Ukraine Lesson India Must Learn From Its Pakistan Standoff (Suchkov)

There is plenty to say about the chaos unfolding in Washington these days, but the sudden military escalation between India and Pakistan shifts our attention elsewhere – and provides some useful lessons. Since the start of Russia’s military operation against Ukraine, India’s official stance has generally aligned with Moscow’s interests. Yet it has consistently stressed the importance of peace. While many in India’s political and media elite – especially the pro-Western crowd – have criticized Russia, their views have been shaped by alignment with the West, not by deeper national principles. India’s official line, however, has always been dressed in polished diplomatic language, designed to project wisdom and balance. Early in the conflict, India’s Ambassador to the UN, Ruchira Kamboj, said: “India has consistently called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and an end to violence.”

Fast forward to 2024, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi added: “The conflict in Ukraine is a matter of deep concern for all of us. India firmly believes that no problem can be solved on the battlefield. We support dialogue and diplomacy for early restoration of peace and stability.” And of course, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar offered a soundbite which was repeated endlessly in international forums: “Wars are not the way to settle disputes.” The consistent refrain at countless conferences about “peace in Europe” boiled down to this: Russia was old-fashioned, clinging to outdated great power logic. The world had moved on, they insisted. And inevitably, some “public intellectual” would spice things up with a quote from Chanakya, Confucius, or even the Pope – advising Russia on how real diplomacy should look today.

It was all reminiscent of a famous scene in Aleksei Balabanov’s 2005 movie Dead Man’s Bluff, where a bandit from the polished 2000s lectures his 1990s Russian counterparts: “Why do you keep shooting? Business is done differently now.” It wasn’t just the Indians who pushed this line. The Chinese, Brazilians, Turks (yes, them too), and other so-called “rising powers” repeated similar mantras. Now, let’s be clear: no one should gloat. War is a terrifying and extreme manifestation of unresolved contradictions. However, to pontificate about “wisdom” and peace as if it’s a fresh insight is banal – and, frankly, vulgar.

Because when real danger arrives – when an enemy or existential threat targets your home – there is no high-minded choice left. States, like individuals, take up arms and fight for victory in order to restore peace. That’s not bloodlust; it’s the basic logic of international relations, from ancient kingdoms to today’s global order. You can deny it, but you can’t make it disappear. Western propaganda’s greatest success over the past three years was convincing much of the world that Russia’s offensive was a “war of choice” rather than a “war of necessity” – which it was. Many in the so-called rising powers naively believed that every conflict offers a choice, and that they themselves would never resort to arms. But history teaches otherwise.

When survival and national security are truly at stake, even the most idealistic states will – without even realizing it – abandon their slogans and do whatever is necessary. That, too, is a timeless law of international life. As the Bible reminds us: “While people are saying, ‘Peace and safety,’ destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape” (1 Thessalonians 5:3). What should Russia do now? Stay the course – finish what we started. And be prepared for new challenges on other fronts. At the same time, we should follow diplomatic protocol and call on India and Pakistan to resolve their crisis peacefully. We can even offer to host peace talks, if needed. Because while the reality of conflict remains unchanged, so too must our commitment: Victory first. Peace second.

Happy World War Two Victory Day – to us, and to peace.

Read more …

O’Keefe said a few days ago he was scared and would go dark ahead of this report. It’s clear why.

John Bryan, the unwilling “witnesss”, is the worst douche I’ve seen in a while.

‘Prince Andrew Was F*ing Underage Girls’ – James O’ Keefe (ZH)

An American businessman close to the royal family (not for long) was caught on undercover footage with damning claims about Prince Andrew’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. John Bryan, a trusted advisor to the Duke of York, claims that Prince Andrew lied to him about his involvement with minors, according to the footage, obtained by O’Keefe Media Group (OMG). “I knew he [Prince Andrew] saw him [Jeffrey Epstein],” said Bryan, “But he lied to me that he was such a close friend,” revealed Bryan, referring to Prince Andrew’s personal relationship with Epstein. More via OMG;

After Prince Andrew’s 2019 BBC interview, where he denied knowing Virginia Giuffre and famously claimed he was physically incapable of sweating, Bryan says he was quietly brought into “Royal Lodge,” Andrew’s private residence, to provide “crisis” management advice. In a previous interview with the New York Post, Bryan revealed “They [the British Royal Family] brought me in to help him [Andrew].” Bryan told the publication, “Andrew was so distressed, he wasn’t able to focus for more than 40 minutes.”

According to previous reporting by The Daily Mail, Bryan also admitted to crafting a five-page PR strategy titled the “House of Kroy,” advising Andrew to publicly express sympathy for victims of Jeffrey Epstein while maintaining his own innocence. At the time, Bryan publicly supported the Prince, stating, “I believe Prince Andrew is innocent.” “I did a big thing in The Daily Mail saying that I believed Andrew,” Bryan recounted to our undercover OMG journalist, adding, “And then I found out he was lying. I was so pissed.” When asked what Andrew had lied about, Bryan didn’t mince words: “That he was fucking underage girls. That’s not cool.” O’Keefe Media Group has reached out to both the Royal Family and John Bryan for comment regarding Bryan’s admissions.”

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Butler

Happy

Opera
https://twitter.com/Ducnghia16/status/1920073056439161292

Alpaca

Robot

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

May 032025
 
 May 3, 2025  Posted by at 9:35 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  41 Responses »


Pablo Picasso Girl with a boat (Maya Picasso) 1938

 

US Demands Direct Russia-Ukraine Talks (RT)
Russia and Ukraine ‘Closer’ To Settlement – Rubio (RT)
Ukraine Conflict ‘Not Going to End Any Time Soon’ – Vance (Sp.)
Ukrainian MP Threatens Terror Attack On Red Square (RT)
Brussels Floats Trade Solution To Trump – FT (RT)
European Security Is Impossible Without Russia (Fetouri)
Trump Claims US Did ‘More Than Any Other Country’ to Win World War II (Sp.)
Ukraine Can’t Reclaim Lost Territory – Rubio (RT)
The Hardest Working Man In The Trump Administration (Sarah Anderson)
What’s Normal, Exactly? (James Howard Kunstler)
We’re Gonna Lose the PR War Over Tariffs Until We Start Doing THIS (Pinsker)
Germany’s AfD Party ‘Definitely Right-Wing Extremist’: Spy Agency (RMX)
Germany ‘Has Rebuilt The Berlin Wall’ – Vance (RT)
Germany Is Weaponizing WWII Memory Against Russia (Amar)
Germany Is ‘Tyranny In Disguise’ – Rubio (RT)
Odessa Massacre: Point of No Return Marked Ukraine’s Slide Into Nazism (Sp.)
Trump Reportedly Turns To L3Harris For “Interim” Air Force One Jet (ZH)
The Ghost in the Machine. AI and The Spectral Ontology of Value (Ruggeri)

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1917982262869582328

Miller

RFK

https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1918101908889206911
https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1918108357245751334

Full

 

 

 

 

As the week progresses, attention will increasingly shift to the consequences of the tariffs dispute. It’s been a month since Liberation day, and that’s the time Chinese goods need to arrive in the US – or not. The MSM will milk it not just for everything it is, but for everything they can make it appear to be.

As for Ukraine, the US needs to lose Zelensky and his Azov neo nazi support.

US Demands Direct Russia-Ukraine Talks (RT)

The US will no longer serve as mediator in negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce has said. Speaking at a regular press briefing on Thursday, she stated it was time for the two parties to propose their own solutions and engage in direct talks. Trump had previously pledged to end the Ukraine conflict “within 24 hours” if elected, though he later described the claim as an “exaggeration.” Since taking office in January, he has pressed both sides for a ceasefire but has expressed frustration over the slow progress in the talks. Trump has warned that the US may withdraw from the peace process if it continues to falter. Earlier, Moscow signaled it’s ready to start direct negotiations with Kiev “without preconditions,” while Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered Russian forces to observe a short ceasefire during Victory Day celebrations next week.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has branded the Russian truce announcement a “manipulation.” “We will not be the mediators,” Bruce told reporters when asked about Washington’s future role. “We certainly are still committed to it and we’ll help and do what we can, but we are not going to fly around the world at the drop of a hat to mediate meetings.” “It’s time for both of the nations involved in this conflict to come up with concrete proposals about how this conflict ends. It’s going to be up to them,” Bruce added. Her remarks contrasted with comments by US Vice President J.D. Vance, who said earlier this week that Washington planned to dedicate another 100 days to mediating a peace deal.

Media reports have claimed the US peace proposal includes recognizing Russia’s sovereignty over Crimea and its de-facto control over parts of four former Ukrainian regions that chose to join Russia. It also reportedly calls for “freezing” the conflict along current front lines. Commenting on Moscow’s decision to halt military operations next week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the pause should serve as “the start of direct negotiations with Kiev without preconditions.” Kiev, however, demanded an immediate, unconditional 30-day ceasefire.

Read more …

“They’re closer, but they’re still far apart..”

Russia and Ukraine ‘Closer’ To Settlement – Rubio (RT)

Russia and Ukraine are closer to a peace agreement than at any point in the past three years, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said. He cautioned, however, that the sides still need to bridge numerous differences to end the conflict. In an interview with Fox News on Thursday, Rubio reflected on efforts by US President Donald Trump to settle the Ukraine conflict, a promise he had made while still on the campaign trail. “For a hundred days he has done efforts to bring about peace… Look, we’ve gotten closer. We – for the first time – we haven’t known this for three years – we kind of can see what it would take for Ukraine to stop. We can see what it would take for the Russians to stop,” Rubio said.

However, stark differences between Moscow and Kiev remain, the State Secretary noted. “They’re closer, but they’re still far apart. And it’s going to take a real breakthrough here very soon to make this possible… or I think the president is going to have to make a decision about how much more time we’re going to dedicate to this,” he added. His comments come as State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce affirmed that the US is committed to settling the conflict, but is “not going to fly around the world at the drop of a hat to mediate meetings.” Instead, she signaled that it is now up to Russia and Ukraine “to present and develop concrete ideas about how this conflict is going to end.” Last month, the Trump administration indicated that the US could withdraw from the peace process altogether if there is no clear indication of progress in the talks.

Earlier media reports suggested that the US had proposed a peace agreement that includes Washington’s recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, as well as “freezing” the conflict along the current front line and acknowledging Moscow’s control over large parts of the four former Ukrainian regions which voted to join Russia. The deal would also reportedly prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and initiate a phased removal of the sanctions imposed on Russia. Russia has maintained that any peace settlement must include recognition of the new territorial reality on the ground, Ukraine’s demilitarization and denazification, as well as assurances that Kiev will not join NATO. Ukraine, however, has consistently refused to acknowledge its former territories as part of Russia.

Read more …

“..Ukraine ditched the 2015 Minsk Agreements and the 2022 Istanbul peace deal, and has repeatedly ignored Russia’s calls for talks — including President Vladimir Putin’s 2024 peace proposal..”

Ukraine Conflict ‘Not Going to End Any Time Soon’ – Vance (Sp.)

US Vice President JD Vance said Russia and Ukraine know each other’s terms for peace, and it is up to Moscow and Kiev to reach a deal. “For three years, these sides have fought, and each of them has said, no peace, we’re going to fight until the other guys are basically knocked out. What we’ve seen now in the last couple of weeks is each side has put down. This is our peace proposal. The Ukrainians did it. The Russians did it. And now I think the question is to see whether we can actually find some middle ground here for these guys to bring this conflict to a close,” Vance boasted about a ‘deal’ that doesn’t exist. He said it would be up to Russia and Ukraine to decide. “It’s not going anywhere. It’s not going to end any time soon,” Vance emphasized.

“When I say this deal, I mean getting these guys to actually propose a peace settlement,” Vance said — blissfully unaware that Ukraine ditched the 2015 Minsk Agreements and the 2022 Istanbul peace deal, and has repeatedly ignored Russia’s calls for talks — including President Vladimir Putin’s 2024 peace proposal. Russia has been conducting its special military operation since February 24, 2022. President Vladimir Putin has said the operation aims to “protect people subjected to genocide by the Kiev regime.” According to the president, the ultimate goal of the operation is to completely liberate Donbass and create conditions that guarantee Russia’s security: Ukraine must undergo demilitarization and denazification.

Moscow says arms supplies to Ukraine hinder the settlement and directly involve NATO countries in the conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has stressed that any cargo containing weapons for Ukraine will be a legitimate target for Russia. The top diplomat has called the US and NATO out for not only supplying weapons to Kiev, but also training personnel in the UK, Germany, Italy and other countries. The Kremlin has stated that Western arms supplies to Ukraine hinder peace talks.

Read more …

“..the final decision rests with Ukraine’s military leadership, taking into account the presence of foreign dignitaries from neutral countries..”

Ukrainian MP Threatens Terror Attack On Red Square (RT)

Kiev could target Moscow’s Red Square during next week’s Victory Day celebrations, a Ukrainian lawmaker has suggested, despite Russia’s offer of a three-day ceasefire. May 9 marks the 80th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany in World War II. On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a 72-hour ceasefire from May 8 to 10, citing “humanitarian considerations.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later described the truce as a chance to begin “direct negotiations with Kiev without preconditions.” However, in an interview with Ukrainian media on Wednesday, Yury Pavlenko openly suggested that Ukraine could try to derail Victory Day, which is one of the most revered holidays in Russia, as well as many former Soviet republics.

”I think the time will come when we will strike Red Square – whether it happens this May 9 or sometime later, that time will come,” Pavlenko said, claiming that the Russian capital is full of “legitimate military targets… that have brought much grief to Ukrainian soil.” He noted that the final decision rests with Ukraine’s military leadership, taking into account the presence of foreign dignitaries from neutral countries. This year’s Victory Day parade is expected to be attended by Chinese President Xi Jinping, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, and Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, among others.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky has branded the Russian truce proposal a “manipulation,” while calling for a longer ceasefire of 30 days. “They are now concerned that their parade is in jeopardy and rightly so,” Zelensky said. “What they should worry about is that this war continues.” In response, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova suggested that Kiev “is literally planning terrorist attacks on air,” which she said undermines the prospects for peace talks. Since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Kiev has conducted a number of drone attacks on Moscow. On May 3, 2023, Russia accused Ukraine of attempting to assassinate Putin by targeting the Kremlin with two drones, which were shot down before they could cause significant damage.

Read more …

US purchased $230 billion more from EU than vice versa. The European Trade Commissioner sees a $56 billion deficit problem.

Brussels Floats Trade Solution To Trump – FT (RT)

The EU wants to substantially increase purchases of goods from the US, according to European Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic, as cited by Financial Times. The move could help the bloc secure the elimination of import tariffs proposed by US President Donald Trump, the official has said. As part of his sweeping ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs on major trading partners, Trump sharply raised duties on US imports from the 27-nation bloc. The US president sees the tariff campaign, which targeted over 90 countries, as a solution to what he calls unfair trade imbalances. If what we are looking at as a problem in the deficit is €50 billion ($56 billion), I believe that we can really … solve this problem very quickly through LNG purchases, through some agricultural products like soybeans, or other areas, Sefcovic said on Thursday in an interview with the newspaper.

He emphasized that the bloc would not accept the 10% tariffs on its goods being kept in place as a fair resolution. He also warned that it would be “very difficult” to strike a deal that is “clearly good and acceptable for our member states and our European parliament.” Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced a sweeping 20% tariff on all EU goods and a 25% tariff on all car imports in an effort to eliminate the trade deficit with the bloc. Brussels was set to introduce 25% retaliatory tariffs on US imports before Trump announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs to allow for talks. However, the 10% baseline tariff and 25% tariff on certain goods remain in place.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has offered Washington a deal whereby tariffs on all industrial goods would be removed. However, Trump has rejected the zero-for-zero tariffs proposal, saying that it doesn’t solve the problem of the trade imbalance. Trade volumes between the US and the EU amounted to $975.9 billion in 2024, according to official data tracked by the Office of US Trade Representative. The US purchased $605.8 billion worth of EU goods, while the bloc’s imports from the US amounted to $370.2 billion.

Read more …

Because it is a European country.

European Security Is Impossible Without Russia (Fetouri)

The narrative around Russia’s role in European security has become increasingly distorted in recent decades. Once a central player in European geopolitics, Russia is now considered an outsider at best and an outright enemy at worst. Looking at Moscow through this narrowed prism has become the norm not the exception. It makes the focused observer wonder if European leaders really believe that much can be done without Russia, particularly security-wise. To say such a European view of Moscow is both unfair and short-sighted may be an understatement. It is only 80 years since the Soviet Union, of which Russia was the center, led the liberation of Europe from what was essentially the European evil of Nazism, which is coming back to haunt the old continent.

Do current European leaders really forget such recent history or do they, intentionally, want to rewrite it to suit their current agendas and future Europe, in another generation or two? There is an irony here: while some European leaders are intentionally casting Russia as a “non-European” entity, the historical and practical reality paints a starkly different picture – where Russia is not only a European country but an essential player in ensuring the continent’s stability and prosperity. What cannot be changed is this: Russia is and will always be as European as France or Germany. Any serious debate about security in Europe is meritless and factitious without acknowledging Russia’s pivotal role. Throughout history Europe needed some kind of balancing powers between its internal powers (such as France and Germany), and Russia has been key in maintaining the balance of power on the continent.

A case in point: had it not been for the Soviet Union defeating Nazi Germany, who knows what kind of Europe would have emerged from World War II? The Soviets sacrificed more than 27 million human lives – soldiers and civilians – to rid the world of Nazi Germany and help create a new Germany, even though Germany has never been fully denazified. The United States played a part in liberating Europe and some 190,000 of its soldiers were killed, but that does not make the US a natural ally of Europe more than Russia. After the war, Western Europe accepted US hegemony, but that does not change the fact that Russia is a European and neighborly country and should be part of any European context discussions.

After the Cold War ended, Russia became even more important to be considered European than even the United Kingdom. The UK, eventually, chose to be an extension of America geopolitically and ended up threatening the EU had it not left the superficially harmonic union. Even the claim that shared values unite Europe and America and Europe within NATO is more of a justification for excluding Moscow than a reality. What are the noble values the UK shared with America in invading Iraq or Afghanistan? Where are such shared values within the NATO alliance, led by the US, that compelled it to destroy Libya in 2011? In both cases Moscow was out of the calculation except as a potential adversary.

This negative image of Moscow across much of Europe has been on the rise, becoming what the Russians rightly describe as “Russophobia,” taking a life of its own after the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. Today many European leaders have reinforced this binary view of Russia as a threat, despite its historical and cultural ties to Europe. It seems that, in modern European politics, the question of Russia’s European identity is too often answered with a resounding “no.” Portraying Russia as a non-European country is an unfair characterization loaded with adversarial connotations. Who can deny the simple geographical fact that the Russian Federation is part of Europe and that Moscow lies firmly within Europe? Yet European school textbooks hardly count Moscow as a European capital city. Commonly, Russia in this context is described as the “other,” implying exclusion.

Read more …

And WW! too.

Trump Claims US Did ‘More Than Any Other Country’ to Win World War II (Sp.)

US President Donald Trump declared May 8 Victory Day, saying that the United States did “more than any other country” to win World War II. The Soviet Union bore the brunt of defeating Nazi Germany and its European allies — destroying the vast majority of German forces on the Eastern Front. With over 27 million dead, it was the Red Army’s relentless push from Stalingrad to Berlin that shattered Hitler’s war machine. The USSR also played a crucial role in Japan’s defeat, crushing the Kwantung Army in August 1945 — a key factor in Tokyo’s surrender.

“Many of our allies and friends are celebrating May 8th as Victory Day, but we did more than any other Country … I am hereby renaming May 8th as Victory Day for World War II and November 11th as Victory Day for World War I. We won both Wars, nobody was close to us in terms of strength, bravery, or military brilliance, but we never celebrate anything — That’s because we don’t have leaders anymore, that know how to do so! We are going to start celebrating our victories again!” Trump said on Truth Social on Friday. As for America’s so-called “military brilliance”? The US became the only country in history to use nuclear weapons — killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. World War I wasn’t much different: the US talked big, joined late, and still claimed victory. So much for all that “bravery.”

Read more …

“Should Kiev abandon plans to join the US-led military bloc and withdraw its troops from the four new territories, Moscow is ready to institute an immediate ceasefire..”

Ukraine Can’t Reclaim Lost Territory – Rubio (RT)

Ukraine will not be able to reclaim its 2014 borders from Russia, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has publicly stated he will never recognize the lost territories, including Crimea, as Russian. The peninsula voted overwhelmingly to join Russia in 2014, shortly after the US-backed armed coup in Kiev. Kherson, Zaporozhye, Donetsk and Lugansk regions held their own referendums in 2022 to become part of Russia. Earlier this week, US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Keith Kellogg told Fox News that Kiev has expressed a willingness to cede land de facto, if not de jure, as part of a peace deal. “Ukraine can’t push the Russians all the way back to where they were in 2014,” Rubio said in an interview with Fox News on Thursday.

After months of US-brokered peace efforts, Washington has a pretty clear idea of what both sides want, the top US diplomat noted. “We kind of can see what it would take for Ukraine to stop. We can see what it would take for the Russians to stop,” he said, adding that Moscow’s and Kiev’s settlement demands are still “far apart.” “It’s going to take a real breakthrough here very soon to make this possible, or I think the President is going to have to make a decision about how much more time we’re going to dedicate to this,” Rubio said. Both Trump and Rubio have previously warned that the US could walk away from being a peace broker in the Ukraine conflict, if there is no progress soon.

“Not that a war in Ukraine is not important, but I would say what’s happening with China is more important,” Rubio said, adding that Iran is another US concern. Moscow has repeatedly stated that its peace terms include Ukraine’s neutrality, demilitarization and denazification, as well as for Kiev to give up its ambitions to join NATO. Also, ceding the new Russian regions of Kherson, Zaporozhye and the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics is not up for discussion, Russian President Vladimir Putin said last year. Should Kiev abandon plans to join the US-led military bloc and withdraw its troops from the four new territories, Moscow is ready to institute an immediate ceasefire, he added.

Read more …

“In recent years, it often seemed like he was the only adult in the room when it came to recognizing just how big of a problem China is for us..”

The Hardest Working Man In The Trump Administration (Sarah Anderson)

I’ve heard various members of Donald Trump’s administration say that it’s hard to keep up with the president at the pace he’s been going since Jan. 20. But there may be one man in the cabinet who can do it. Marco Rubio. In case you missed the news on Thursday, Trump shook his administration up a bit by announcing that Mike Waltz would no longer be his national security advisor. A little while later, the president surprised pretty much everyone — including State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce, who was mid-briefing — when he posted on Truth Social that he’d be nominating Waltz to be the next United States Ambassador to the United Nations instead. In the same post, he announced that he would be appointing Rubio as acting national security advisor. If you’re keeping track at home, Rubio now serves four — four! — roles in the Trump administration.

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1918032465219776901?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1918032465219776901%7Ctwgr%5E131b83389bf4f01796a60ebe103fda880dc04efd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fsarah-anderson%2F2025%2F05%2F02%2Fthe-hardest-working-man-in-the-trump-administration-n4939427

Of course, Trump nominated Rubio for Secretary of State almost immediately after he was elected in November, and he was confirmed hours after Trump was sworn in on Jan. 20. On Feb. 3, which seems like years ago now, the president announced that Rubio would become Acting Administrator of USAID, and that the State Department would absorb the agency. Since then, we’ve learned what a mess USAID was, and Rubio announced that about 83% of its programs would be canceled. Shortly after that, on Feb. 7, Trump fired the Archivist of the United States, Colleen Joy Shogan, and on Feb. 16, he announced that Rubio would take her place. And now he can add national security advisor to his resume. Not bad for the guy Trump once called “Little Marco.” Rubio’s new workload has become a major talking point online and throughout the media ever since Trump made the announcement.

The Guardian points out that Rubio is the “first person since Henry Kissinger to hold the national security adviser and secretary of state positions at the same time. In the article “Marco Rubio, Secretary of Everything,” the New York Times also writes, “The former senator from Florida is now the head of four government bodies. He has outdone Henry Kissinger and even Xi Jinping, China’s leader, who has only three titles.” (Pretty sure the Jinping reference was meant to be some sort of dig after skimming the article, but I didn’t read the whole thing carefully, but it’s the New York Times, so the odds are…) Heck, even People magazine wrote an entire article based on the fact that Rubio has four jobs now. nRubio himself appeared on “Hannity” on Fox News tonight and spoke briefly about it, and he posted, “I’m honored to serve under the leadership of @POTUS” on X.

And here I am, sitting in my bed with my laptop after midnight on Thursday, writing about it for PJ Media, even though I told a couple of our editors earlier that I wasn’t going to. Why am I doing that? Well…If you come here regularly, you might notice that I write about Rubio and the State Department often. There are a few reasons for that. First, I’ve been a huge Rubio fan since he became a senator. He’s a bit older than me, but I always felt like he understood my generation more than any other politician in my lifetime, and he spoke to us about topics that mattered to us. (I could dig a little deeper into this and maybe one day I will, but not tonight.) I always felt like he understood things in ways that most other people who supposedly represent the country never did. Not only was he book smart, as they say, but he possessed a lot of common sense. It’s hard to find that, well, anywhere, much less in Washington, D.C.

I know many of you are Rubio fans now, too. Every single time I write one of those articles, I see dozens of comments about how impressed most of you are with him so far. Back during the 2016 primary, he became the only presidential candidate whose campaign I’ve ever supported financially. I’ve defended him both privately and professionally at times when many conservatives turned on him, and when I hopped back on the Trump train last summer, I hoped the president would choose him for, if not vice president (which I know was an issue because of Florida), Secretary of State. One reason for that is China. In recent years, it often seemed like he was the only adult in the room when it came to recognizing just how big of a problem China is for us. You could hear that loud and clear during his Senate confirmation hearing in January.

Read more …

“The job here is to enforce the federal civil rights laws, not woke ideology.” — Harmeet Dhillon, US Assistant AG for the Civil Rights Division

What’s Normal, Exactly? (James Howard Kunstler)

When a claque of deep state shills such as Norm Eisen, Chuck Schumer, Bill Kristol, David Brooks, and Larry Summers holler about Mr. Trump’s attempt to reform a depraved political culture as “an assault on norms,” are you not prompted to wonder what, exactly, those norms might be? Looks like they are describing a colossal matrix of racketeering operations in concert with an epic program of crypto-Marxist mind-fuckery, mountains of money purloined under color-of-law, swindles galore of practically every public enterprise, the capital city of a so-called republic fogged in gaslight to conceal a Satyricon of pedophilia, sodomy, and sado-masochism in every closet, cabinet, and pigeon-hole of the political class. So, along comes Mr. Trump for the second round, with a supernaturally able clean-up crew this time, and the monsters feeding off that depraved normality commence to shriek in mortal panic as the scaffold of their crimes gets methodically disassembled and secrets are revealed.

Many of you have been pouting over the lack of criminal prosecutions these first hundred days. Why is AG Ms. Bondi preening on Fox News when she should be banging-out subpoenas and arrest warrants, you ask? And what broom-closet is Dan Bongino hiding in over at the Hoover Building? How is Hillary Clinton still at-large in the land? Does Alejandro Mayorkas still make his Saturday excursions to the boutiques along M Street? Looks like the months of May and June are setting up to be the season of shocks and consequence. Item: James O’Keefe, founder of Project Veritas (he was cancelled from it) and now running O’Keefe Media Group, put out a mighty strange eighteen-second video this week. Looks like it was filmed in a basement somewhere. “I’m going dark, he says ruefully. “I’m not suicidal. Pray for me. This one scares me, guys.”

A week earlier, O’Keefe announced that he had bombshell recordings of public figures breaking the law, involving billions of dollars, which he expected would lead to indictments. What spooked him in the week since then? I guess we’ll have to stand by to find out, or see if JO’K was bluffing. Meanwhile Virginia Guiffre, a former Jeffrey Epstein teen sex slave, likewise said just over a week ago: “I am making it publicly known that in no way, shape, or form am I suicidal. If something happens to me, for the sake of my family do not let this go away and help me to protect them. Too many evil people want to see me quieted.” This was a month after she was injured in a traffic accident with a school bus in Western Australia. On April 24, she reportedly committed suicide at home, after release from the hospital. What do you suppose changed her mind?

An ominous silence surrounds the promised release of the Epstein case material, whatever it consists of: depositions, flight logs, photographs, video recordings of prominent people in compromising situations. Remember, not long after inauguration day, the FBI’s New York field office was found to be sitting on a huge trove of previously hidden Epstein case evidence. The DOJ swiftly “retired” the chief agent of the office, James Dennehy, who additionally had failed to cooperate with requests to disclose the names of agents involved in the Jan-6 investigations. Supposedly, since the discovery of the Epstein trove, a thousand agents were assigned to “process” it, redact the names of the innocent victims, so they say. Are they close to finishing?

Speaking of the J-6, 2021 matter, pressure is building for the Republican majority Congress to hold hearings on exactly what went on that fateful day. FBI Director Patel has yet to disclose how many government agents (not just FBI), and how many “confidential human sources” (i.e., provocateurs), were in the crowd around and inside the US Capitol. It’s getting to be past time to ask Mr. Patel for a straight answer on that in an official proceeding, and continue from there to related business, such as Nancy Pelosi’s failure to reinforce the Capitol Police with National Guard troops that day, and the strange doings around the DNC pipe bomb ploy few blocks away. Personally, I doubt that Mr. Patel is inclined to lie or dissemble about all that. But the natives are getting a little restless.

Mr. Kennedy at HHS is already pretty frisky in his role supervising the enormous cluster of agencies that have done so much to wreck the nation’s health in recent years. Goodbye fluoride in the drinking water. Hello to placebo testing for new drugs and vaccines. Welcome to a vigorous six-month campaign to determine a likely cause of the autism epidemic. RFK is even asking what exactly is in those aviation contrails that folks have been observing and complaining about for so many years. And then there was the bomb he dropped during this week’s cabinet meeting: that under Joe Biden, HHS acted as a major vector for the trafficking of children. Say, what??? Lotta people wondered, did Bobby really say that? And does he know exactly who in HHS is responsible. . . like, names attached? I guess we’ll find out.

Read more …

“As of today, Americans are thinking about tariffs though the lens of the mainstream media outlets..”

We’re Gonna Lose the PR War Over Tariffs Until We Start Doing THIS (Pinsker)

I’ll begin with the counterargument: If everything goes according to plan, the PR war over tariffs will be irrelevant, because the ultimate “spin” is a complete and total victory. And there’s a clear path to the finish line, which we outlined a month ago:

“Trump’s best PR path forward is to do exactly what he just did: On day one, impose painful tariffs on everyone. This way, you frontload the bad news. And then, after a few weeks of economic turmoil, the other countries will (hopefully) come begging to renegotiate — their hat in hand — because the possibility of losing the rich, rewarding, ultra-lucrative U.S. marketplace makes ‘em panic. After a few weeks of horrible, devastating economic news (which, alas, we’re seeing now), the headlines will then change in a hurry: Every other day, Trump would have a new, positive tariff treaty to announce! After the first few countries cave, it will incentivize all the other nations to get their [tushies] in gear and get a deal done fast — lest they wait too long and are frozen out of the U.S. marketplace. Done right, it creates a win-win domino effect: The new American gold rush!”
However, there was a caveat:
“But it’s still a high-risk strategy for Trump, because there’s no guarantee the other top countries will quickly fold. Sure, we expect places like France to live up to their white-flag-waving reputations (“Je suis un lâche!”), but national pride is tricky to predict. In the foreign countries that viscerally loathe Trump, the politicians can score points by “standing up the American bully.”

We’re now one month removed from Liberation Day, and MAGA Nation certainly frontloaded the bad news. There was a lot of it. And the latest polls reflect it. Here’s a hodgepodge of headlines over the last seven days:
• Fox News: Trump poll numbers on economy fall during trade fight, survey finds
• Gallup News: Most Americans Skeptical About Benefits of Tariffs
• CNN: CNN Poll: A growing majority says Trump has made the economy worse, with most skeptical of his tariff plans
• ABC News: Nearly two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Trump tariffs
• The Hill: Almost 6 in 10 say Trump policies making economy worse
• Yahoo News: Poll: After 1st 100 days, Trump’s approval rating continues to crater as 57% say he’s ‘gone too far’ on tariffs
• CBS News: Trump’s first 100 days seen as bringing big changes, but still too much focus on tariffs — CBS News poll
• NBC News: Poll: Americans vent disappointment with Trump ahead of 100 day, especially on tariffs
• Reuters: Risk of global economic recession surges on US tariff shockwaves: Reuters poll
• Newsweek: Americans Lose Faith in Economy Amid Trump Tariffs

Not good, and it’s a credit to Trump that the polls weren’t worse. This entire month has been a loud, angry drumbeat of media negativity — and Americans weren’t well-educated about tariff policy or global trade deals beforehand, because it’s not a sexy topic. In those (boring) days pre-Trump, Bill O’Reilly on Fox News and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC almost never mentioned ‘em. So, it’s not like illegal immigration, where we’ve heard the different arguments a zillion times and have already settled on a conclusion (which is why the media’s negativity about that lovable Maryland family man failed to move the needle). But with tariffs, we’re still hearing the arguments. Some Americans for the first time ever.

Without the “institutional knowledge” (including, sadly, those lovely on-air tutorials from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies; he would be so helpful right now) to sort through the hysteria, the public is vulnerable to PR manipulation. As of today, Americans are thinking about tariffs though the lens of the mainstream media outlets. And those outlets are focusing on:
• The economy is cratering! Everything’s crashing!
• Trump is a power-hungry maniac and out of control!
• Inflation will explode! We’ll all be broke!
• Shelves will be bare!
• Tariffs are stupid and destructive, lowering America’s standing in the world!

That’s a problem.

Read more …

Reads a bit like: what if Kamala Harris had been elected president? (In Germany, she was). The divide between Germany and the US is gaping.

Germany’s AfD Party ‘Definitely Right-Wing Extremist’: Spy Agency (RMX)

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has been declared “definitely right-wing extremist,” by the powerful domestic spy agency, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV). The party is reacting with outrage. The BfV claims that the party is pursuing efforts against the “free democratic order,” which the agency now says is “certain.” Previously, the party was only declared as a “suspected case,” with this new designation paving the way for not only a ban but also mass surveillance of the entire party, including all its members. With this new designation, the BfV can surveil members, including their emails, phone calls, and chats, without a warrant. In addition, the BfV can now legally infiltrate the entire party with informants and use other spy techniques. Already, other parts of the AfD at the state level were classified as “definitely right-wing extremist,” but the new designation now applies this label to the entire national party.

The party is reacting with outrage, with Alice Weidel, the co-leader of the party, writing: “The decision of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is a severe blow to German democracy!” Regarding the statement by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, AfD federal spokespersons Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla said: Today’s decision by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is a severe blow to German democracy: In current polls, the AfD is the strongest force. The federal government only has four days left in office, the intelligence agency doesn’t even have a president anymore. And the classification as a so-called suspected case is not yet legally binding. Nevertheless, the AfD, as an opposition party, is now being publicly discredited and criminalized shortly before the change of government. The associated, targeted interference in the democratic decision-making process is therefore clearly politically motivated. The AfD will continue to defend itself legally against these defamations that endanger democracy.”

The BfV, however, is attempting to justify its decision, which will be seen by many as an attack on the country’s largest opposition party. Due to the “extremist character of the entire party, which disregards human dignity,” the BfV noted in its statement. Vice presidents of the authority, Sinan Selen and Silke Willems, further indicated that statements and positions of the party “violate the principle of human dignity.” One of the key factors that the BfV is attempting to use to justify the designation is the AfD’s alleged position on “ethnic Germans.” “The ethnic-descendant understanding of the people prevailing in the party is not compatible with the free democratic basic order,” reads the statement from the BfV. “The AfD, for example, does not consider German citizens with a migration history from predominantly Muslim countries to be equal members of the German people, as ethnically defined by the party.”

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has been declared “definitely right-wing extremist,” by the powerful domestic spy agency, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV). The party is reacting with outrage. The BfV claims that the party is pursuing efforts against the “free democratic order,” which the agency now says is “certain.” Previously, the party was only declared as a “suspected case,” with this new designation paving the way for not only a ban but also mass surveillance of the entire party, including all its members. With this new designation, the BfV can surveil members, including their emails, phone calls, and chats, without a warrant. In addition, the BfV can now legally infiltrate the entire party with informants and use other spy techniques.

https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/1888999118326108392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1888999118326108392%7Ctwgr%5E1c7ec0fa2146094423148b3c66b422bb2d906d25%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frmx.news%2Farticle%2Fbreaking-germanys-afd-party-is-declared-definitely-right-wing-extremist-by-bfv-spy-agency-paving-the-way-for-a-ban%2F

Already, other parts of the AfD at the state level were classified as “definitely right-wing extremist,” but the new designation now applies this label to the entire national party. The party is reacting with outrage, with Alice Weidel, the co-leader of the party, writing: “The decision of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is a severe blow to German democracy!” Regarding the statement by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, AfD federal spokespersons Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla said: Today’s decision by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution is a severe blow to German democracy: In current polls, the AfD is the strongest force. The federal government only has four days left in office, the intelligence agency doesn’t even have a president anymore. And the classification as a so-called suspected case is not yet legally binding.

Nevertheless, the AfD, as an opposition party, is now being publicly discredited and criminalized shortly before the change of government. The associated, targeted interference in the democratic decision-making process is therefore clearly politically motivated. The AfD will continue to defend itself legally against these defamations that endanger democracy.” The BfV, however, is attempting to justify its decision, which will be seen by many as an attack on the country’s largest opposition party. Due to the “extremist character of the entire party, which disregards human dignity,” the BfV noted in its statement. Vice presidents of the authority, Sinan Selen and Silke Willems, further indicated that statements and positions of the party “violate the principle of human dignity.”

One of the key factors that the BfV is attempting to use to justify the designation is the AfD’s alleged position on “ethnic Germans.”“The ethnic-descendant understanding of the people prevailing in the party is not compatible with the free democratic basic order,” reads the statement from the BfV. “The AfD, for example, does not consider German citizens with a migration history from predominantly Muslim countries to be equal members of the German people, as ethnically defined by the party.”

Read more …

“The AfD is the most popular party in Germany, and by far the most representative of East Germany. Now the bureaucrats try to destroy it,” Vance wrote on X.”

Germany ‘Has Rebuilt The Berlin Wall’ – Vance (RT)

US Vice President J.D. Vance has compared the German government’s treatment of the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party to rebuilding the Berlin Wall. On Friday, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the BfV, classified the anti-immigration AfD as an “extremist” organization, citing “xenophobic, anti-minority, Islamophobic, and anti-Muslim statements made by leading party officials.” The label enables police to closely monitor the party’s activities. “The AfD is the most popular party in Germany, and by far the most representative of East Germany. Now the bureaucrats try to destroy it,” Vance wrote on X. “The West tore down the Berlin Wall together. And it has been rebuilt – not by the Soviets or the Russians, but by the German establishment,” he added.

The party’s co-leader, Alice Weidel, accused the government of attempting to quell dissent. “Since the AfD is the strongest party in polls now, they want to suppress the opposition & freedom of speech,” she wrote on X. AfD was founded in 2013 as a backlash to Germany’s handling of the eurozone debt crisis. It has since shifted focus to demanding tighter immigration and asylum laws and opposing the “woke agenda.” The party also criticizes NATO and has staged protests against sending weapons to Ukraine. AfD finished second in the federal elections in February, winning 152 seats in the 630-seat Bundestag. Last month, it topped opinion polls for the first time, with 26% support. The party is especially popular in the economically underdeveloped regions of former East Germany. AfD has also been embroiled in controversy, as some members have had links to far-right and neo-Nazi groups or used slogans associated with Nazi Germany.

Major German parties have refused to cooperate or form coalitions with AfD under the so-called “firewall” principle. Vance criticized efforts to isolate the party during his speech at the Munich Security Conference in February. “Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There is no room for firewalls. You either uphold the principle or you don’t,” the US vice president said. The Berlin Wall was a concrete barrier built by East Germany in 1961 to stop its citizens from fleeing to West Berlin. It became a powerful symbol of the Cold War and remained in place until it was torn down in 1989, leading to German reunification.

Read more …

Russia: 26 million deaths. US: just over 292,000.

Germany Is Weaponizing WWII Memory Against Russia (Amar)

Eighty years ago, Germany suffered its worst self-induced military – as well as moral, political, cultural, you name it – catastrophe ever. First, Nazi Germany led the global fascist challenge that we call World War II. Then, Germany was not merely defeated but crushed by the combined efforts of, in order of importance, the Soviet Union, the US, and UK, to name only those powers that really mattered decisively for the outcome of the war in Europe. This Allied victory in Europe is celebrated in May. In the West, the commemorations peak on the 8th and in Russia, one day later. In Asia, things were different. World War II started earlier – in July 1937, not September 1939, and ended later – in August, not May, 1945. Regarding the war in Europe, the West has always, with varying intensity, sought to diminish the preponderant role of the Soviet Union – and within the latter, of Russia.

Concerning the war in Asia, the West’s main target of this weaponized forgetfulness has been China, rightly labeled “the forgotten ally” by historian Rana Mitter. China, like the Soviet Union and now Russia, has always dared challenge Western hegemony and especially US ‘primacy’. And, as with Russia and the former Soviet Union, it is this geopolitical independence that has led the West to deny the Chinese people’s real and massive World War II contribution and sacrifices, which were enormous (the death toll alone, to quote only one figure, is estimated at 12-20 million). But for now, back to the European part of the war. There, in historical reality, it was the Soviet Union that did the most – by far – to destroy Nazi Germany. And that is a simple, even quantifiable historical fact. Merely a decade ago, it was occasionally admitted even in Western mainstream media, such as America’s Washington Post and Britain’s Independent.

A few figures suffice to sketch just how predominant the Soviet share in the victory over Nazism was: Over the course of the war, in all its theaters, 17 to 18 million Germans served in the Nazi forces (including the Wehrmacht and the smaller but especially important and vicious Waffen-SS). At least 4 million German soldiers were killed in the fight against the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945 alone. Estimates indicate that at least as many were injured, probably more; around 3 million became POWs. The upshot of this is simple: A massive chunk, some historians estimate up to 80%, of the total German fighting manpower of World War II – not only those who invaded the Soviet Union – was eliminated on what the Germans called the Eastern Front. Without going into easily available details, the picture is similar when we focus not on men but materiel.

Ask, for instance, Google’s Gemini AI in Deep Research mode, and it will sum it up thus: “It is evident that the Eastern Front absorbed the vast majority of Germany’s total tank losses throughout the war.” It turns out that the failure of Germany’s touted Leopard tank in the Ukraine conflict has a long tradition reaching back to Nazi Germany’s Panthers and Tigers: Russia, neutering German cats since 1941. Put simply, as with Sweden’s Gustav XII and France’s Napoleon, it was Russia and the Soviet Union that broke Hitler’s back. And at enormous cost and sacrifice: Current, solid figures put Soviet losses (military and civilian combined) at 26-27 million. (Compare, for instance, with the US: Military casualties, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, just over 292,000; civilian losses were negligible, even if every individual death is, of course, tragic.)

And now it is Germany – of all places – that has marred the run-up to this year’s May anniversary with an embarrassingly ugly scandal. Its essence is a German government attempt to crudely instrumentalize the commemorations to make them serve the propaganda war that has been part of the West’s proxy war in Ukraine, while accusing Russia of doing just that. In Germany, more and more often, every accusation is a confession, as they say about Israeli propaganda.

Read more …

“..officially designate AfD a “confirmed extremist entity.” This legal status allows the BfV to deploy surveillance and intelligence measures to monitor the party’s activities without restriction.”

Germany Is ‘Tyranny In Disguise’ – Rubio (RT)

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has sharply criticized Berlin for designating Alternative for Germany (AfD), the country’s most popular party according to recent polling, as “extremist.” Such actions have nothing to do with democracy, he has warned. “Germany just gave its spy agency new powers to surveil the opposition,” America’s top diplomat wrote on X on Friday. “That’s not democracy – it’s tyranny in disguise.” Earlier in the day, the German domestic security service (BfV) announced the decision to officially designate AfD a “confirmed extremist entity.” This legal status allows the BfV to deploy surveillance and intelligence measures to monitor the party’s activities without restriction.

Explaining the move, the agency cited “the extremist nature of the entire party, which disregards human dignity.” It pointed to the party’s “prevailing understanding of the people based on ethnicity and descent,” which it said was “incompatible with the democratic basic order.” The AfD has long been known for its harsh anti-immigration stance. “What is truly extremist is not the popular AfD… but rather the establishment’s deadly open border immigration policies that the AfD opposes,” Rubio argued, calling on Berlin to “reverse its course.” The right-wing party has been enjoying steady support from Washington ever since US President Donald Trump entered the White House for his second term.

US Vice President J.D. Vance strongly criticized politicians who shun parties such as the AfD at the Munich Security Conference in February. US-based billionaire and Trump adviser Elon Musk has repeatedly openly expressed support for the party. In January, ahead of the German parliamentary vote, he hosted a livestream on X with AfD co-leader and then chancellor candidate, Alice Weidel. The party came in second during the February election, behind the center-right Christian Democrats, which ruled out any coalitions with the AfD. Recent polls show the two parties being neck-and-neck, with one survey published by Forsa Institute putting AfD one percent point ahead of their center-right rivals.

Read more …

“Ukraine’s drive to join Europe involved denying its heroic past, glorifying criminals and Nazi collaborators, and promoting the “Banderization” of society.”

Odessa Massacre: Point of No Return Marked Ukraine’s Slide Into Nazism (Sp.)

On May 2, 2014, a pro-Maidan crowd outnumbering anti-Maidan protesters trapped dozens inside the Trade Union building and set it on fire with petrol bombs. At least 42 anti-Maidan activists died—either burned, asphyxiated, or killed by gunfire. The mass murder of innocent people in Odessa’s Trade Union house marked a “point of no return” for Ukraine, Ukrainian politics expert Alexander Dudchak told Sputnik. Those behind the West-backed coup that year were driven by Nazi-fueled “hatred for humanity.” Their goal was to build an “anti-Russia,” with Russophobia stoked from abroad. After the tragedy, “it became clear to those who disagreed with the [pro-Western Ukrainian] government that there was no way to defend their rights except through force.” Thus, the Odessa massacre can be seen as the turning point for all subsequent events.

“It became obvious what these forces represented – human-hating, pure Nazism, which came to power in Ukraine,” said Dudchak. Long before the Soviet Union’s collapse, NGOs and foreign funds, like the notorious Soros foundation, began distorting history to ideologically target the younger generation. Ukraine’s drive to join Europe involved denying its heroic past, glorifying criminals and Nazi collaborators, and promoting the “Banderization” of society. Despite the public’s strong preference for ties with former Soviet countries, a West-inspired coup took place, reshaping public consciousness. History was rewritten, dissent silenced through brutal methods, and media control imposed.

On May 2, 2014, Ukrainian nationalists locked anti-Maidan protesters, who opposed Euromaidan and Ukraine’s rapprochement with the European Union, in the Odessa Trade Union House and set the building on fire. Almost 50 people died, and some 250 protesters were injured in clashes with the radicals, according to the United Nations. The massacre was executed by the West’s protégés and under their control. “I don’t rule out that the West may have even written the script for this event. They needed to show the population what happens to those who try to oppose them. And that is what they did – with an animalistic cruelty,” concluded Dudchak.

Read more …

Boeing’s problems are all over the company. Engineers used to run the company; now it’s accountants.

Trump Reportedly Turns To L3Harris For “Interim” Air Force One Jet (ZH)

Frustrated by repeated delays in Boeing’s new Air Force One production timeline, President Trump has reportedly commissioned defense contractor L3Harris Technologies to retrofit a Boeing 747 previously used by the Qatari government as an interim presidential aircraft. The Wall Street Journal reported that L3Harris has been tasked with retrofitting the Qatari 747 with communications systems and other equipment to transform the luxury aircraft into Air Force One. According to the people familiar with the matter, President Trump requested that L3Harris complete the needed retrofitting of the jumbo jet by as early as fall. In February, FOX Business’ Edward Lawrence confirmed that Boeing had suffered global supply chain snarls that changed project timings and delayed the completion date to 2029.

White House communications director Steven Cheung told FOX Business at the time: “It is ridiculous that the delivery of a new Air Force One airplane has been delayed for such a long time,” adding, “The president working on identifying ways to speed up the delivery of a new plane, which has been needed for a while.” Months later, WSJ’s L3Harris report may suggest that there were very limited options to speed up the Boeing delivery. Here’s more from the report:

“Before Trump’s inauguration, White House Military Office and senior Air Force officials considered canceling Boeing’s contract for the new planes, according to people familiar with the matter. White House officials under Trump have also discussed whether they can sue the plane manufacturer, some of the people said. Trump initially tapped the bloated defense contractor to build the next-generation presidential aircraft during his first term, aiming to replace the aging fleet. Boeing’s failure to deliver on time has become emblematic of the broader military-industrial complex: bloated, sluggish, and unaccountable. The military-industrial complex’s failures must urgently be corrected. For now, L3Harris is stepping in, aiming to deliver a retrofitted Qatari 747 as an interim Air Force One jet by this fall. America’s defense space needs more domestic competition if it wants to compete in the 2030s.

Read more …

“The manufactured presentation of the self (fabricated authenticity) is the ultimate neoliberal imperative: people are actively encouraged to become producers of themselves. The name of the game is “fake it till you make it.”

“..this state of affairs is undermining real engagement and driving an increasing number of frustrated and disillusioned users away from these platforms, leaving bots to interact with other bots, as advertisers already lament.”

The Ghost in the Machine. AI and The Spectral Ontology of Value (Ruggeri)

By now it should be abundantly clear how social influencers operate. Self-promotion, exaggerated claims, and a well-crafted image can snowball into credibility before anyone checks credentials. They build parasocial relationships with their followers who feel like they know the influencer, even if they have never met. Influencers attempt to create an aura of individuality and authenticity through personal storytelling, share raw footage or sensational material, invite followers to “peek” into their lives encouraging voyeuristic engagement. However, this aura is even more fragile than the artificial aura mentioned by Walter Benjamin when in the 1930s he described the Hollywood-driven phenomenon of elevating actors to celebrity status, creating cult-like personas that compensated for the loss of aura in in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Not only is the influencers’ derivative content easily replicable, they too are vulnerable to replacement by AI-generated personas.

Benjamin recognized in the spell of the star’s personality “the phony spell of a commodity.” But most importantly, he warned that a medium that has a dual capacity to abolish distance between the audience and the depicted world while simultaneously detaching the audience from the physical world and its material conditions, is ideally suited to the aims of fascism. Benjamin was primarily referring to film and photography, but in an era of algorithmic reproduction controlled by a handful of tech companies his observations have become more relevant than ever.

Influencers leverage the bandwagon effect, that mix of conformity and fear of missing out. Once a persona gains momentum, with the help of thousands of bots whose cost is now less than a cent for basic accounts, humans jump on. Social media’s smoke and mirrors work because we are wired for stories, not audits. But with billions of automated bots flooding social media platforms, there is a roughly 50% chance that any account you engage with, whether by liking a post, commenting, or following, is a bot. Bots have become so sophisticated that it has become increasingly harder to detect them. As to the remaining accounts that are still operated by humans, about half of them publish content that is generated by artificial intelligence.

Even those with limited expertise on a given topic can produce persuasive posts and articles, while readers would need an AI tool such as GPTZero to identify their artificial origin. A simple prompt ensures that the AI-generated content they publish is aligned, and resonates, with their followers’ ideological leanings, interests and preferences. An article that appeared in a conservative news outlet can be automatically rewritten to please a liberal audience and vice versa. A paper published by an academic can be summarized and interspersed with jokes and colloquialism to appeal to a non-academic audience, three articles can be seamlessly meshed into one creating a cohesive piece that synthesizes their content, etc. You get the drift.

Shaped by a mix of human activity and AI-generated content, the Internet and social media now resemble a phantasmagoria, a make-believe optical show that projects ghostly images, fetishizes human desires and experiences, and intensifies narcissistic self-reference to create an illusion of authenticity. The manufactured presentation of the self (fabricated authenticity) is the ultimate neoliberal imperative: people are actively encouraged to become producers of themselves. The name of the game is “fake it till you make it.” Lack of qualifications or professional expertise is no barrier for aspiring influencers. Ambition, a background in marketing, a good knowledge of psychological manipulation techniques, the ability to leverage algorithms, and an initial investment in an army of bots to boost content are better guarantors of success.

Those who make the cut can rake in juicy contracts to promote products, services or a political agenda. The more engagement their hustle generates, the more data capital social media platforms accumulate. Unsurprisingly, this state of affairs is undermining real engagement and driving an increasing number of frustrated and disillusioned users away from these platforms, leaving bots to interact with other bots, as advertisers already lament.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Hydroxide

mRNA

Tom plays dead

 

 

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Mar 302025
 
 March 30, 2025  Posted by at 10:00 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,  33 Responses »


David Hockney A Bigger Splash 1967

 

How Donald Trump Is Reshaping America in Just 7 Weeks (Victor Davis Hanson)
It Wasn’t a Leak, It Was a Devious “Charlie Foxtrot” (Larry Johnson)
Vance Asked Trump To Fire Waltz – Politico (RT)
Why Did Jeffrey Goldberg Leave The ‘Bomb Yemen’ Signal Chat? (Max Blumenthal)
Trump Puts the System on Trial (RCW)
The Best Response For Developing Countries To US Tariffs: Sell US Debt (Proud)
xAI & X Merger Defuses Musk’s Tesla Share Liquidation Risk (ZH)
Iran ‘Doesn’t Care’ About Trump’s ‘Threats’ – Senior Commander (RT)
Federal Judge Halts Shutdown of Voice of America (ET)
Ex-Italian PM Reveals ‘Secret Mission’ For Zelensky (RT)
Zelensky Is a ‘Demon’ – Ukrainian MP (RT)
EU To Reject Russia-US Black Sea Deal – von der Leyen (RT)
The EU Wants to Use War as an Excuse for More Debt (Andreen)
Joe Rogan Guest Completely Shatters the Vaccine Narrative (VF)

 

 

 

 

1994

Birth rate

Painful homework
https://twitter.com/cb_doge/status/1905912268111360510

Details
https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1905881343436767284

Not
https://twitter.com/Sassafrass_84/status/1905679457160925611

No. 4
https://twitter.com/GUnderground_TV/status/1905546747574710733

 

 

 

 

“.. it’s a revolutionary achievement. There’s nobody going across the border illegally, or at least, it’s statistically insignificant.”

How Donald Trump Is Reshaping America in Just 7 Weeks (Victor Davis Hanson)

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. How should we characterize the first seven weeks of the Trump administration because we get so much information and misinformation? Almost a day doesn’t go by where The Wall Street Journal is predicting that we are headed for a recession, that our allies are furious at us, that the economy is on the brink. So, what are we gonna make of all this? I think it’s time to take a deep breath and envision the first seven weeks is something like the following: President Donald Trump is in a race. He’s in a race to enact fundamental, disruptive change, a counterrevolution, and it’s going to be rough for a while, as he pointed out. But the things that he has already done are going to have, shortly or maybe even midterm, fundamental advantages for the United States. The question is, can he message and can he explicate and explain what he’s doing so people hang on? Because the eventual reward will be great.

Now, what do I mean? We’re talking about tariffs, tariffs, tariffs, but even the mere mention of tariffs for all of these countries that have not been reciprocal and have imposed tariffs on us in a way that we would never think of imposing on them, that idea that we might return to parity, it’s had an enormous effect. Some $4 trillion of announced investment from the Europeans, from the Saudis, from the Chinese, from the Mexican government, from the Canadians even. That will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. And that is in the process of working out. When Donald Trump entered office in 2017, we were only pumping about 9 million barrels. When he left, we were pumping 12 million. The Biden administration immediately cut back. And then it decided, before the midterms, “Hey, Americans like affordable oil.” So then they continued the Trump plan and got up to 12, almost 13 million barrels.

Already in just seven weeks, we have increased the amount of oil produced per day in the United States by about a third of a million barrels. And we’re on schedule to get up to about 14 million barrels by the beginning of the year. And that is coordinated with an increase in Middle East production as well. So, we’re going to see a moderation of energy prices, which may explain, already, why the inflation rate was not nearly as high as was predicted. If we look at the border, it’s amazing. We were told that the border problem was unsolvable without comprehensive immigration reform. And there were 10,000 people swarming up per day. We don’t even—nonchalantly, nobody talks about it anymore. But it’s a revolutionary achievement. There’s nobody going across the border illegally, or at least, it’s statistically insignificant.

The big issue right now is the Left is cherry-picking judges to prevent, not the deportation of somebody who’s working, who’s never been arrested, who’s been here for five or six years, but criminals and people who already have been ordered out of the country or pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist supporters. But the point I’m making is, what we’re doing now is Phase Two. The border is essentially solved, as far as security, and in seven weeks. Now, we’re having a difficult task of trying to find out who these 12 million people were that former President Joe Biden deliberately and with intent—malicious intent—allowed to come into the country. But the point I’m making is this is an incredible success.

There’s a final point that I want to make. We hear about Elon Musk is not authentically American. He is a nepo baby. And we hear Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, threatening his person, along with threatening Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. All of this chaos and nihilism coming about Elon Musk and what he’s doing, but what he’s finding out, almost every day, in the Treasury, in the IRS, in the Department of Energy, in the intelligence communities, is a vast unreported siphoning off of hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, to favorable and mostly left-wing entities, both abroad and here in the United States.

And already, he has cited areas where the Cabinet officers can cut $200 billion. That’s a fifth, only after seven weeks. He’s got a fifth of the way to go. He thinks he can cut a trillion dollars without touching entitlements. I don’t know if he can. But let me just sum up. If Donald Trump is able to fulfill this promise of commitment by foreign entities of $4 trillion in investment—$4 trillion—if he is able to cut a trillion dollars within a year or two, if he’s able to solve the Ukraine war, and if he is able to have a general peace in the Middle East, that will be the most substantial presidency—if he does nothing else—that we’ve seen in 50 years. Final word, everybody, keep calm. There’s events in process that if they are brought to fulfillment and fruition, this country will be a radically different and radically better place.

Read more …

They come off as a platoon of newbie nitwits. Run by Israel. Not pretty.

It Wasn’t a Leak, It Was a Devious “Charlie Foxtrot” (Larry Johnson)

Charlie Foxtrot is a polite euphemism for a crude military term — Clusterfuck. That describes the first scandal of the Trump Administration. Somehow, whether deliberate or accidentally, a Zionist journalist by the name of Jeffrey Goldberg was added to a Signal chat by Trump’s National Security Advisor, Michael Waltz, or by someone who worked for Waltz. Goldberg suddenly found himself part of a group chat of Trump’s top defense, diplomatic and intelligence officials. The group included CIA Director Ratcliffe, DNI’s Tulsi Gabbard, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, among other luminaries.

If you are not familiar with Signal, you create a group chat by naming a group and then adding members from your list of contacts. This tells us that Goldberg was part of Waltz’s list of contacts. Goldberg is a particularly slimy character, not because he published portions of the chat, but because he behaved as a political hack instead of a journalist. A journalist with that unexpected access, would have written an immediate story announcing that the US was going to start bombing Yemen just to make an example of it. What did Goldberg do? He waited till the bombing happened and then hoisted the Trump gang on its own petard. He made the story about Charlie Foxtrot, which he published on Monday in The Atlantic magazine.

This was not a leak. This was a gift to Goldberg. While the contents of the chat are not officially classified, the information being discussed was operationally sensitive. The chat exposed most of the Trump team as shallow and dismissive of the military and diplomatic implications of the decision to start bombing Yemen. If Waltz and company wanted to discuss the pros and cons of bombing Yemen, he should have convened a Secure Video Conference, aka SVTC (pronounced, CIVITS). Pete Hegseth’s remarks to the press, responding to the Goldberg article, makes a solid case that he is not qualified to serve as Secretary of Defense. Instead of admitting that this was a fuckup on the part of Waltz, he decided to attack Goldberg. Moreover, he pretends that the US was hitting hardened, military targets. That is a lie:

While I agree with Hegseth that Goldberg is a partisan hack, Goldberg did not insinuate himself into the chat or steal the material. Waltz, or one of his staff, did that. We will have to wait and see if the Trump team has learned anything from this debacle. I suspect Signal will no longer be used for sensitive topics. The portion of the chat that Goldberg published shows that JD Vance is not a Zionist crazy. He at least had reservations about the plan to bomb Yemen. The same cannot be said for the others — Pete Hegseth in particular. The following snippets from Goldberg’s article makes it clear that the decision to bomb was not based on some actual provocation or attack by Yemen. Nope, it was a malevolent symbolic gesture:

“The account labeled “JD Vance” responded at 8:16: “Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake.” (Vance was indeed in Michigan that day.) The Vance account goes on to state, “3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.” The Vance account then goes on to make a noteworthy statement, considering that the vice president has not deviated publicly from Trump’s position on virtually any issue. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”

The account identified as “JD Vance” addressed a message at 8:45 to @Pete Hegseth: “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.” “I will say a prayer for victory,” Vance wrote. . . . Hegseth’s counter to Vance’s concern that the American public won’t understand why were bombing the shit out of another faraway country is this: “Nobody [in America] knows who the Houthis are, so [we can just say] Biden failed and Iran funded them.” Well, guess what, boys and girls? Trump failed, just like Biden. The bombings over the last nine days have not deterred the Houthis from renewing their attacks on ships and Israel. And it has put US naval vessels in harm’s way without a good reason. Hegseth gives the game away… this is about blaming Iran.

It is incumbent on Goldberg to release the entire electronic conversation. Maybe I am being too harsh. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard or John Ratcliffe or the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency raised some objections. But it appears that everyone was supportive of the proposed operation. Shameful.

Read more …

“Like hell he’d give the liberal media and pearl-clutching Democrats a win..”

Trump’s no. 1 task right now is to stand up for his team. Loyalty.

Vance Asked Trump To Fire Waltz – Politico (RT)

Vice President J.D. Vance and other senior officials “gently offered” President Donald Trump to fire National Security Adviser Mike Waltz during a private discussion about the blunder in which Waltz accidentally included a reporter in a confidential chat about US military strikes in Yemen, according to anonymous insider sources cited by Politico. Two individuals allegedly familiar with the closed-door meeting at the White House on Wednesday night told Politico that Vance, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and personnel chief Sergio Gor advised Trump that it might be time to cut Waltz loose. The president reportedly agreed that Waltz had “messed up,” but ultimately decided against a dismissal.

“Like hell he’d give the liberal media and pearl-clutching Democrats a win,” Politico wrote on Friday, citing one insider as saying the administration “don’t want to give the press a scalp.” The leak, first reported by The Atlantic on Monday, revealed that Waltz had inadvertently invited editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a confidential Signal chat where senior administration officials were discussing upcoming airstrikes on Houthi militants in Yemen. Waltz has taken “full responsibility” for the incident, calling it “embarrassing” in a Fox News interview and attributing the inclusion to a technical “glitch.”

President Trump has largely downplayed the controversy, dismissing the media response as a “witch hunt” and questioning the reliability of Signal. He also emphasized that no classified information was compromised and praised the military operation as “unbelievably successful.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt voiced the administration’s stance, stating on Monday that “President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.” Vance, for his part, has publicly aligned himself with the president’s decision. On Friday, he brought Waltz along for a high-profile trip to Greenland, where he dismissed media speculation and defended the national security team.

“If you think you’re going to force the president of the United States to fire anybody, you’ve got another thing coming,” Vance told reporters. Yet Politico claimed that Waltz’s position remains tenuous, citing one Trump ally who said, “They’ll stick by him for now, but he’ll be gone in a couple of weeks.” Other unnamed sources described longstanding personal and political tensions, alleging that Waltz has alienated colleagues by overstepping boundaries and acting more like a principal than a staffer. A spokesman for Waltz, Brian Hughes, pushed back against the narrative, calling the reports “gossip from people lacking the integrity to attach their names.” He emphasized that Waltz “serves at the pleasure of President Trump” and continues to have the president’s support.

Read more …

“..a gargantuan empire bombarding a poor, besieged country because it is controlled by a popular movement that is currently the only force on the planet taking up arms to stop Israel’s genocide in Gaza..”

Why Did Jeffrey Goldberg Leave The ‘Bomb Yemen’ Signal Chat? (Max Blumenthal)

Atlantic Magazine editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg has won the admiration of his Beltway peers for the conduct he displayed after being accidentally invited into a smoke-filled “bomb Yemen” Signal chat with Trump’s national security honchos and top advisors. “Props to Jeffrey Goldberg for his high standards as a professional journalist,” declared Ian Bremmer, the trans-Atlanticist foreign policy pundit on his Bank of America-sponsored GZero podcast. “When he realized the conversation was authentic he immediately left, informed the relevant senior official, and made the public aware without disclosing intelligence that could damage the United States.” But what exactly did Goldberg do to deserve such high praise?

With a once in a lifetime opportunity to view and report on high level discussions on the US launching an illegal war on Yemen, Goldberg chose to avert his gaze and leave the scene as soon as he could, apparently because maintaining such unparalleled access would have compelled him to report on discussions that might have complicated a war being waged on behalf of the Israeli apartheid state to which he emigrated as a young man. Instead of exploiting his front row seat to the Trump admin’s war planning – a vantage point that would have yielded countless scoops and a bestselling book for any adversarial journalist – Goldberg bolted and dutifully informed the White House about the unfortunate situation.

From there, the story became a palace intrigue over an embarrassing failure of “opsec,” or operational security, and not one about the policy itself, which entails a gargantuan empire bombarding a poor, besieged country because it is controlled by a popular movement that is currently the only force on the planet taking up arms to stop Israel’s genocide in Gaza. In the fourth paragraph of Goldberg’s Atlantic article about the principals’ Signal group, he strongly implied that he supports the war’s objectives, describing Ansar Allah, or the Houthis, as an “Iran-backed terrorist organization” which upholds a belief system that is (what else?) antisemitic. Given Goldberg’s admission that Waltz first reached out to him at least two days prior to mistakenly adding him to the Signal group, it appears the NSC director had been leaking to the Atlantic editor on behalf of the neocon faction in the Trump White House. And it seems clear why Waltz would have sought to cultivate Goldberg.

During the run-up to to the Iraq war, then-Vice President Dick Cheney cited Goldberg’s bunk reporting alleging deep ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda during multiple media appearances hyping up the coming invasion. Under Obama, Goldberg served as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s errand boy, churning out tall tales about Tel Aviv’s imminent plan to attack Iran’s nuclear sites – unless the US did it first. Since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, the once-failing Atlantic has suddenly turned a profit, as Goldberg unleashed a firehose of propaganda against the keffiyeh-clad enemies of the magazine’s Upper East Side donor base. This month, with momentum for a strike on Iran building within the Trump White House, Goldberg was summoned once again move to the neocon message, and wound up with more access than he bargained for.

When asked in a March 24 interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins why he left the Trump principals’ Signal group voluntarily, Goldberg ducked the question. But as Ian Bremmer suggested, he did so out of deference to power and an abiding belief in a US empire hellbent on protecting Israel. And in the culture of Beltway access journalism, that’s considered a laudable trait.

Read more …

“..the judges’ resistance is expected—they’re bound up in and rewarded by the system Trump seeks to reform.”

Trump Puts the System on Trial (RCW)

President Trump’s supporters have denounced the federal judges seeking to stall or stop this administration’s government overhaul. But there is at least one person who, despite a show of outrage and condemnation, is neither surprised nor intimidated: Trump himself. The politically appointed judges have ordered, among other actions, that federal agencies reinstate thousands of fired probationary employees; that billions of taxpayer dollars be paid to questionable USAID projects and contractors; and that foreign-born criminals deported to their native countries be returned and granted due process. Regardless of the legal merits, the American people recognize these orders as obstructions to what Trump said he would do if elected, and what voters elected him to do. Yet the judges’ resistance is expected—they’re bound up in and rewarded by the system Trump seeks to reform.

Two-thirds of Americans believe the “system” is broken, but for years progressive politicians and their mouthpieces posited that the system couldn’t be fixed. Intellectuals on the Left, including New York Times columnist David Brooks, said America’s flaws were “systemic” in nature: systemic racism, systemic sexism, and systemic injustice. They whined and preached but offered no solutions for the millions of Americans of all races and both genders struggling and failing to unlock their potential to succeed. When Trump announced his candidacy for president in 2015, he too claimed the system was broken, but not because we are racist or sexist by nature, but because the system itself is old, soft, and corrupt, with leaders grown unresponsive to the people they are supposed to serve. That core belief guided his first term and remains unchanged at the start of his second.

For decades, politicians failed to respond to real problems because their agendas, even their identities, were phony, crafted by consultants and pollsters who aimed not for the truth, but for whichever lies or provocations were most efficacious in winning the next election. But one need not resort to craven and conspiratorial explanations of this sort, which hint that elected officials deliberately ignore the public will. The truth is simpler. They have to ignore voters, if only because they have no idea how to fix the problems we face. In one sense, the elites’ ineptitude is understandable: we have a highly complex society that has undergone a recent, rapid, destabilization brought on by technological advance. But to admit that they simply don’t know how to address any contemporary issue would be to concede that it is only their mere status as “elites” that qualifies them to rule.

Thus, to conceal their befuddlement, they explain their inaction by a vague demand that we address the “root causes” of every issue – which further justifies them in doing nothing. The bad faith inherent to the “root causes” strategy was nowhere more obvious than at the border. For years, establishment voices told us that border security measures would fail without addressing the “root causes” of the problem: central American poverty and climate change. These appeals allowed the political class to avoid doing what they didn’t want to do (securing the border) and to manufacture a duty to do the things they did want to do (diverting American revenue to foreign aid “relief programs” and enacting more restrictive environmental policies). Aside from those interventions, they assured us, there was nothing we could do about the illegal immigration crisis.

Speaking about politicians in 2015, Trump said: “I hear their speeches. They don’t talk jobs. [They] have no competence. [They] don’t know what’s happening.” His message of “America First” was clear and authentic, and it implied real action and solid outcomes: protect jobs, livelihoods, and futures of Americans. The hapless politicians had nothing to counter. “The Resistance” to the first Trump administration was advanced by the machinations of bureaucrats in the vast regulatory state. But with the president rapidly dismantling that apparatus, a new strategy was needed. For the Resistance 2.0, it seems the establishment will depend on the courts to thwart the democratically-expressed will of the people. But there is a higher court in this land, where American voters serve as judge, jury, and executor.

Earlier this month at the Department of Justice, Trump warned of the “violent, vicious lawyers” who persecute the president and bully the American public to get their way. Expect these lawyers to “play the ref,” Trump said, weaving in a story about former Indiana University basketball coach Bobby Knight, who once threw a chair across the court and screamed like a madman at the referees for a call to be overturned. The referee wasn’t going to change the first call, Trump said of Knight’s rationale for throwing the tantrum. “But he’s going to change for the next play. And sure as hell, he did.” Trump understands that activist lawyers and progressive pundits will put heat on the judiciary, and that, on occasion, they’ll get their way.

For 10 years, Trump has confronted the political class, calling out their incompetence and dishonesty, and the voters continue to reward him. Federal judges, egged on by the politically-motivated legal establishment, may try to frustrate the president in his pursuit of long-held promises to build a better country. But Trump is building his case outside the courts – and he’s betting on a sympathetic hearing with the American people, who will note the overt evidence of bias, corruption, and incompetence, whether it occurs in the media, executive branch, or the judiciary. Judges will rule on procedure and technicalities, but the people will evaluate the legitimacy of our institutions and credibility of our leaders.

In 2028, the jury will render its verdict.

Read more …

In theory perhaps. But how much US debt do you have to spare?

The Best Response For Developing Countries To US Tariffs: Sell US Debt (Proud)

As President Trump threatens the world with sweeping tariffs, he is trying to change the fundamental laws of economics through force of will. He won’t succeed. Rather than fighting back with reciprocal tariffs, developing countries should sell off U.S. debt. The Austrian American economist Ludwig von Mises once said that ‘the balance of payments theory forgets that the volume of trade is completely dependent on prices.’ The United States has such a gigantic trade deficit, at over $1 trillion each year, because it can buy foreign goods more cheaply than it can produce them domestically. Some countries may subsidise production to lower prices, others might export goods that are further down the value chain compared to what American producers will make.

But, stepping back, the U.S. dollar is so powerful, that it renders American exports more expensive, irrespective of any distortions created by its trading partners. This is part of the exorbitant privilege in which the U.S. dollar acts the world’s leading reserve currency, amounting to 58% of total reserves. Foreign countries put their capital into the U.S. because it is a stable and safe, increasing the price of the dollar on foreign exchange markets because demand is always high. A strong exchange rate makes foreign imports cheaper and that helps to manage inflation in America.

President Trump clearly wants to boost his support in the blue collar heartlands of America, driving job creation in traditional American industry that has been undercut by foreign imports over many years. But he can’t have two cakes and eat them both. He can’t simultaneously slash the huge U.S. balance of payments deficit – helping blue collar workers – while at the same time maintaining the U.S. as the destination of choice for foreign capital. That would be to defy the logic of economics. To oversimplify slightly, America has built its bloated Federal apparatus on the back of cheap imports. The huge current account surpluses that exporting powerhouses like China, India, European and ASEAN countries have built up has produced a torrent of easy capital to prop up the U.S. state.

The U.S. has a debt mountain of around $35 trillion which is roughly the equivalent sum of debt held by foreign investors. Of that debt, around $8.5 trillion is in the form of U.S. Treasuries, literally loans to the U.S. government, with a similar amount invested in corporate debt and the rest largely in equity. That’s why Trump is going in so hard with Elon Musk’s DOGE initiative. He’s desperate to reduce the size of the U.S. state apparatus because he knows that the Federal house of cards is built on fiscal quicksand. He also probably figures that there’s a greater propensity among federal workers – who are facing massive job cuts – to lean democrat, than among factory workers.

That’s why the idea of a BRICS currency is so terrifying to Trump, because BRICS now accounts for 41% of the global economy by purchasing power parity. A BRICS currency poses a longer-term risk of making the dollar less appealing and, therefore, weaker, driving up inflation. Because the real challenge to the U.S. is not the federal debt itself but its ability to service its debt. The exorbitant privilege, coupled with the massively disinflationary tidal wave of the global financial crisis, ushered in a period of historically low inflation and low interest rates.

That era has ended, as ratings agency Moody’s pointed out this week. U.S. interest rates are now higher, at 4.25-4.5% driving up the costs of servicing the country’s enormous debt mountain. The threat to the U.S. right now is inflation and what that means for its debt servicing bill, if interest rates are held or, even, forced higher. There are parallels here for the 1970s, when rampant inflation, triggered by a number of factors including the oil crisis and America’s move to a fiat currency, led U.S. interest rates to soar at one point to 20%. During this period, foreign countries withdrew their investments, and the dollar slumped to 45% of total global foreign exchange reserves. And herein Trump’s challenge. He can’t export more without a weak dollar, and a weak dollar will make U.S. debt harder to service.

Read more …

“The combination values xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion..” Is that $80 billion together or $133 billion?

xAI & X Merger Defuses Musk’s Tesla Share Liquidation Risk (ZH)

Elon Musk secured a multibillion-dollar margin loan using Tesla stock as collateral to finance his acquisition of Twitter (now rebranded as X). In recent months, Tesla’s share price has been cut in half due to a confluence of factors—slowing EV demand amid high interest rates, shifting electric vehicle policies under the Trump administration, market volatility driven by trade tensions, and pressure from a coordinated NGO-driven color revolution known as “Tesla Takedown,” aimed at crashing the stock to trigger loan repayment obligations tied to Musk’s pledged equity. In short, volatility in Tesla shares left Musk heavily exposed to potential loan repayment thresholds being triggered – which was set to occur at or below $114 according to reports – until now.

On Friday evening, Musk announced the merger of X with his AI startup, xAI, in an all-stock transaction that strengthens his financial position, protects Tesla shareholders, and renders the Tesla Takedown color revolution largely ineffective in achieving its intended goal. Musk outlined xAI’s acquisition of X: “xAI has acquired X in an all-stock transaction. The combination values xAI at $80 billion and X at $33 billion ($45B less $12B debt). Since its founding two years ago, xAI has rapidly become one of the leading AI labs in the world, building models and data centers at unprecedented speed and scale. X is the digital town square where more than 600M active users go to find the real-time source of ground truth and, in the last two years, has been transformed into one of the most efficient companies in the world, positioning it to deliver scalable future growth.

xAI and X’s futures are intertwined. Today, we officially take the step to combine the data, models, compute, distribution and talent. This combination will unlock immense potential by blending xAI’s advanced AI capability and expertise with X’s massive reach. The combined company will deliver smarter, more meaningful experiences to billions of people while staying true to our core mission of seeking truth and advancing knowledge. This will allow us to build a platform that doesn’t just reflect the world but actively accelerates human progress. I would like to recognize the hardcore dedication of everyone at xAI and X that has brought us to this point. This is just the beginning.”

Musk privately owns and controls both xAI and X. The transaction is structured as a stock swap, with X investors receiving xAI shares in return. Both companies share overlapping investors, including Fidelity Management, Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom Holding Co, Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, and Vy Capital. Musk, also the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, purchased Twitter in a $44 billion deal in 2022. X CEO Linda Yaccarino wrote on X last night: “The future could not be brighter.” Musk’s X post announcing the acquisition stated that the deal was about “blending” the AI startup and social media platform to create “a platform that doesn’t just reflect the world but actively accelerates human progress.” However, the move also eliminates the risk of Musk undergoing a forced liquidation of the $12.5 billion margin loan backed by his Tesla shares.

As we previously described at the beginning of the note, Tesla shares were halved for a number of reasons: Goldman Trading Desk Views “Trump As Bearish For US EV Market”. “Weak Demand”: Goldman Lowers Tesla Vehicle Delivery Estimate For Quarter. And this…”Tesla Takedown Revolutionaries Prepare Mobilization Nationwide, Tesla Takedown Organizers Plan Color Revolution To “Kill” Brand & “Death Spiral” For Investors. Last week, the Democratic Party and their Communist revolutionaries spelled out their sinister plans… “If we kill the Tesla brand” and “drive down the stock price low enough. We can force him to sell his stock to pay back the billions of dollars of debt he took on to buy Twitter.

“This will drive Tesla into a death spiral,” Micah Lee, The Intercept’s former Director of Information Security, explained on a recent Tesla Takedown teleconference with other far-left revolutionaries. Musk’s indebtedness from leveraging Tesla shares to fund the X deal is no longer a concern for Tesla shareholders. This strategic move also renders the Tesla Takedown color revolution funded by rogue Democrats less likely to force a liquidation.

Read more …

Irann Doesn’t think the US would be stupid enough. But Israel?!

Iran ‘Doesn’t Care’ About Trump’s ‘Threats’ – Senior Commander (RT)

Iran will not bow to US pressure to resume talks over its nuclear program, a top naval commander has said, stressing that Tehran is ready to strike back in the event of an American attack. In an interview with al-Mayadeen TV channel on Saturday, Alireza Tangsiri, commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy, pushed back against US President Donald Trump’s recent ultimatum urging the country to enter new nuclear talks. “I have no knowledge of Trump’s message, nor do I care to analyze it,” Tangsiri said. “I hear his threats, I observe his actions, and I prepare myself to counter them. We have the capability to strike all enemy bases, wherever they may be… No one can strike us and escape. Even if we have to chase them to the Gulf of Mexico, we would.”

Tangsiri also rejected any negotiations over Tehran’s missile arsenal or its backing of groups in the region. “Iran will never negotiate over its missiles or the capabilities of the Resistance Front,” he said. He also emphasized that the Islamic Republic seeks peaceful relations with its neighbors: “We always extend a hand of friendship to the countries in the region. As Muslims, we do not pose any threat to our neighboring countries.” The remarks came in response to Trump’s comments on Friday, in which he confirmed sending a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, seeking to negotiate a nuclear deal. “You’re gonna have to make a decision one way or the other,” Trump said. “We’re gonna either have to talk and talk it out, or very bad things are gonna happen to Iran. And I don’t want that to happen.” He added that if the US has “to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said that while the letter seemed threatening, it still contained “some opportunities” for Tehran. The standoff follows years of tension over Tehran’s nuclear program. In 2015, Iran signed a deal with the US, the EU, Russia, and other world powers in which it agreed to limit its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. However, in 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew America from the landmark agreement, calling it “a horrible one-sided deal” that had failed to achieve its goals. Iran has not ruled out indirect talks on the matter but has refused to do so under duress. It also maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Read more …

$1 billion a year for a woke relic.

Federal Judge Halts Shutdown of Voice of America (ET)

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from dismantling Voice of America (VOA), the government-funded international news service whose 1,200 reporters and employees were placed on paid leave earlier this month. The judge, J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York, on Friday issued a temporary restraining order in favor of VOA employees and their unions. The order prevents the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which oversees VOA, from shutting down the broadcasting network and its associated radio programs. VOA employees filed the lawsuit against USAGM, its acting Director Victor Morales, and special adviser Kari Lake on March 21.

The complaint accused the agency of failing to fulfill its legally mandated missions and violating both press freedom and the separation-of-powers doctrine when it took a “chainsaw” to the outlet, ordering the entire staff not to report to work, turning off the service, and locking the agency’s doors. In his ruling, Oetken stated that VOA was likely to succeed on its claims, noting that USAGM’s actions appeared unconstitutional. He said that Lake lacked legal authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funds or terminate USAGM staff, programming, or contracts. “By withholding the funds statutorily appropriated to fully administer USAGM, VOA, and its affiliates … the executive is usurping Congress’s power of the purse and its legislative supremacy,” he wrote.

The judge did not require VOA to resume broadcasts, but made it clear that employees must not be terminated while the court determines whether the shutdown violates the Constitution or other federal administrative laws. Friday’s order echoed a similar ruling by another district judge earlier in the week, which granted a temporary restraining order to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, blocking its funding freeze. The Trump administration has since stated in court filings that it has resumed funding for these outlets. President Donald Trump and his supporters have been critical of VOA for years over alleged bias against conservative Americans and in favor of America’s adversaries.

In 2020, the White House sent an email accusing VOA of spending taxpayers’ money to “speak for authoritarian regimes.” It took issue with, among other things, a VOA social media post featuring a video of a light show celebrating the end of the lockdown in Wuhan, the Chinese megapolis where the COVID-19 virus first emerged; as well as the agency’s characterization of China’s effort to control the outbreak as a “model” for other nations. “VOA too often speaks for America’s adversaries—not its citizens,” The White House said. “Journalists should report the facts, but VOA has instead amplified Beijing’s propaganda.”

The VOA first began broadcasting in 1942 in German-occupied territories as part of the Allies’ effort to engage Axis propaganda broadcasts with counterpropaganda. In the following decades, it became a staple in the propaganda war against the Soviet Union and other communist regimes. Over time, it evolved into a global news organization, now operating in more than 40 languages. Elon Musk, a tech billionaire and Trump’s top adviser for downsizing the federal government’s spending and workforce, has echoed calls to shut down VOA and its sister networks, arguing that they have outlived their purpose. “Yes, shut them down. Europe is free now (not counting stifling bureaucracy). Nobody listens to them anymore,” he wrote on X, accusing the outlets of being “radical left” and “torching $1B/year of US taxpayer money.”

Read more …

“You know, you are the first European who came to talk to us about this. The others are just asking us not to support Russia.”

Ex-Italian PM Reveals ‘Secret Mission’ For Zelensky (RT)

Former Italian Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema has claimed that he undertook a secret diplomatic mission to Brazil and China on behalf of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to garner international support, amid fears that Kiev would be abandoned by its Western backers. The revelation was made during a conversation with Italian politician Gianfranco Fini published by La Repubblica on Thursday. According to D’Alema, Zelensky approached him sometime in 2024, expressing fears of a potential catastrophe as Western support waned. “I happened to speak with Zelensky on the sidelines of an initiative on the Balkans. And he told me clearly that his country was at risk of disaster because ‘the Americans will withdraw sooner or later, and the Europeans are not reliable,’” the former prime minister told Fini.

“He asked me to go to Brazil and Beijing to find out if Lula and Xi Jinping could do something,” D’Alema claimed. Neither Brazil nor China has publicly confirmed any visits by the former Italian official. In Brasilia, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva reportedly dismissed the initiative outright, insisting that Ukraine is an “American problem.” “I went there, but Lula almost showed me the door, telling me that Ukraine was a problem for the Americans and that, according to him, I should be interested in Palestine instead,” D’Alema said. In China, D’Alema reportedly met with one of the Communist Party’s top foreign policy officials, and discussed the idea of an international peacekeeping force for Ukraine. At the end of the meeting, the Chinese official is said to have remarked: “You know, you are the first European who came to talk to us about this. The others are just asking us not to support Russia.”

The former prime minister also criticized the EU for fueling what he described as unrealistic expectations about the conflict. “Europe has done nothing but repeat that Russia could be defeated, when it was clear to everyone that the war could not be won by anyone,” he said.

Read more …

“They want to inspect the holy relics of our saints. They plan to carve them up, to open them up, to break them into pieces. To perform this sacrilege over them. It’s a huge tragedy for the entire Orthodox world..”

Zelensky Is a ‘Demon’ – Ukrainian MP (RT)

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is waging a campaign of terror against his own people by signing off on a crackdown targeting the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), particularly the iconic Kiev Pechersk Lavra monastery, lawmaker Artyom Dmitruk has said. In an interview with RT on Friday, Dmitruk responded to reports that Ukrainian officials and police have entered the catacombs of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, the nation’s most significant monastery and the final resting place of several Christian saints. During the raid, authorities unlocked doors, broke into the caves, and changed locks. Dmitruk described their actions as sacrilegious and suggested that Zelensky was directly complicit.

“Zelensky is perpetrating genocide of the Ukrainian people. What we are seeing now and what we are witnessing now is the continuation of terror policies of Zelensky’s against [the] Ukrainian people. Zelensky is a demon in the body of a human being. You can call him whatever you want, a godless person, a terrorist, and so on and so forth. The gist of his actions is the same. Zelensky is following a demon’s will,” he asserted. According to the legislator, who claims to have fled the country over the persecution of the UOC, the stated goal of the “inventarization” of the monastery’s possessions is nothing more than a pretext. “They want to inspect the holy relics of our saints. They plan to carve them up, to open them up, to break them into pieces. To perform this sacrilege over them. It’s a huge tragedy for the entire Orthodox world,” he said, recalling that the results of the review would be classified.

“They are raiding the Lavra. They are trying to seize the property of the Lavra… If we speak from a legal point of view, it’s a crime,” Dmitruk stressed. The Ukrainian government has been cracking down on the UOC for months, which it views as having ties to Russia. This effort has included attempts to take over the Lavra, as well as church raids and arrests of clergy. The UOC, the largest religious institution in the country, severed ties with the Moscow Patriarchate following the start of the conflict. Zelensky has defended the move, insisting on the need to protect Ukraine’s “spiritual independence” from Russia. Moscow has condemned the measures, accusing Kiev of suppressing the canonical Orthodox faith and alleging that the West is encouraging these efforts.

Read more …

Nobody cares.

EU To Reject Russia-US Black Sea Deal – von der Leyen (RT)

The EU will not lift its sanctions against Russia for as long as the Ukraine conflict continues, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said. During talks in Saudi Arabia on Monday, Russia and the US agreed to move towards reviving the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which, according to the Kremlin, should include the removal of Western restrictions against Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in the international sale of food and fertilizers. In her interview with French broadcaster LCI on Friday, von der Leyen made it clear that Brussels will not support the idea of a maritime truce between Moscow and Kiev put forward by the administration of US President Donald Trump.

“The sanctions are very significant; they are painful; they have an impact on the Russian economy, and they represent a powerful lever,” she said when asked about the possibility of the EU fulfilling Russian demands to lift some of the curbs. According to the head of the European Commission, the restrictions “will remain in effect until a just and lasting peace is established in Ukraine.” However, she noted that “when the war is over, the sanctions might be removed.” Von der Leyen also said that for the conflict to end, “security guarantees for Ukraine” are needed as well as “a solid defense industrial base and a deterrent force” in the EU. The Black Sea Grain Initiative, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye, envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural products in exchange for the West lifting its restrictions on Russian grain and fertilizer exports.

Moscow withdrew from the deal a year later, citing the West’s failure to uphold its obligations. The Americans and Russians now see its revival as a step towards settling the Ukraine conflict altogether. Earlier this week, President Vladimir Putin asserted that the Russian economy has become the fourth largest in the world in purchasing power parity terms after those of China, the US and India, despite a record 28,595 sanctions being placed on it by Washington, Brussels and their allies. According to the Russian government’s data, the country’s economy grew 4.1% in 2024, surpassing the official forecast of 3.9%. Putin previously urged the Russian business circles against expecting the sanctions to be fully lifted, describing them as a mechanism of strategic systemic pressure on the country that the West intends to keep using.

Read more …

Eurobonds are a huge threat to every European: “The EU Debt Plan is About Centralizing Financial Control.”

The EU Wants to Use War as an Excuse for More Debt (Andreen)

The European political and financial elite knows that the war in Ukraine is lost but wants to use it as an opportunity to reach strategic independence from the United States. As the future chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz said right after his electoral win on Feb 23: “It will be an absolute priority for me to strengthen Europe as soon as possible so much that it gradually really achieves independence from the United States.” Such strategic independence needs money and investment—a lot of it—not only to boost defense but much else, like energy and innovation; areas in which Europe is lagging behind the US and China. In order to have the pretext to implement this spending plan, the idea among the EU elite is to make sure that the war in Ukraine does not end too quickly. That way the conflict can be used to justify artificially injecting much needed money into the moribund EU economies.

First, there was a question of providing €20 billion euros of additional military support for Ukraine and that the EU self-imposed fiscal rules to be loosened using the existing “escape clause” in the event of “exceptional” circumstances, such as the bogus “defense of Ukraine” excuse. As Bloomberg stated, “under this plan, EU nations would be exempt from debt and deficit limits when financing military expenditures. This marks a fundamental shift in EU financial policy, as such exemptions have previously been impossible under EU rules.” Indeed, the EU elite does not want to follow the arbitrary EU fiscal rules: for Paris, the 3 percent limit of budget deficit to GDP is politically painful, and for Berlin, the limit of max 60 percent of GDP in terms of federal public borrowing seems like an artificial constraint.

Then there was a talk of a €700 billion euro defense package. Newsweek stated that: “Baerbock said the package could be worth some 700 billion euros ($732 billion).” French President Emmanuel Macron also confirmed this on March 2, 2025. “We will give a mandate to the European Commission to define our capacity needs for a common defense,” Macron said in an interview published in several French newspapers. “This massive funding will probably reach hundreds of billions of euros.” The official slogan of “help Ukraine defend itself” will give the EU political and financial elite an excuse to turn on the spigots of the European Central Bank at full thrust again; to shower the entire European economy with “free” money, and shore up its fragile economies, like it did after the euro crisis of 2011, with the enormous covid recovery fund in 2021, as well as with the Green New Deal.

This time, the idea seems to be to use joint EU bonds. Reuters writes: “The bigger amounts will have to come from some type of centralized funding, because most budgets in Europe are relatively stretched, particularly in Italy and France.” As was stated in the infamous Draghi Report from Sept 2024: “the EU should move towards regular issuance of common safe assets to enable joint investment projects among Member States and to help integrate capital markets.” Therefore, “common issuance should over time produce a deeper and more liquid market in EU bonds.”

Joint EU bonds are essentially bond issuances against the whole euro economy and would thus entail a low risk and a lower interest rate than country level EU bonds. This is perceived as necessary in order for the EU to hold its own in competition with the US and China that already have unified capital markets, as a speech Draghi gave to the EU Commission last year made clear. There are three main sources of war financing: printing money, increasing taxes, and borrowing. Making available “hundreds of billions” for the EU would likely be based on debt issued from joint EU bonds. Bloomberg noted that, if the spending were funded with tax increases, or cuts in other areas, that could wipe out any positive impact—or worse. Any immediate spending on the military would not help Europe because it would be mostly spent buying US weapons.

Therefore, what the EU elite has in mind now is likely to put in place what F. Merz said; a strategic independence from the US through a huge investment by joint EU bonds, released and used over the long term in order to slowly build up Europe’s industry, not only in the defense sector but also in other sectors. In a sense, this would-be debt plan is just the European Union emulating the United States playbook of using war for crony capitalist benefits, finally “understanding” how to cynically exploit the Ukraine war, just as the US has been doing since 2022 by feeding its military-industrial complex. But, in order for this to happen, the war must not end too soon for the European elite, which is why efforts are made in order to—outrageously—spoil any US peace plans and get the war to continue for now.

Read more …

All of a sudden, everybody knows Dr. Suzanne Humphries. Her X followers went from a few hundred to 62,000 overnight.

Joe Rogan Guest Completely Shatters the Vaccine Narrative (VF)

Everything you’ve been told is a lie—especially when it comes to polio. Dr. Suzanne Humphries reveals what really made all those polio cases disappear after the vaccine was introduced. Dr. Suzanne Humphries, former board-certified nephrologist and co-author of Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History, just made a bombshell appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience and what she shared will completely change how you think about vaccines. Most people are told vaccines are “safe and effective” with no real downside. But Dr. Humphries pulled back the curtain on decades of deception, starting with a major turning point in 1986—when President Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act into law.

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1905055320449442103

Before that, vaccine manufacturers were getting hammered with lawsuits. Humphries explained that after the 1976 swine flu vaccine disaster, Guillain-Barré cases were piling up. It got so bad that the companies couldn’t even get insurance. They ran to the government and basically said: “Bail us out, or we’re done making vaccines.” So the government stepped in. First, it agreed to cover the lawsuits. Then came the 1986 law—sold to the public as a way to help injured families get compensation faster, but in reality, it became a kangaroo court system that rarely paid families deserving of vaccine injury claims. Companies like Wyeth (now Pfizer) admitted their vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe,” yet instead of making them safer, they were handed blanket immunity.

Humphries explained that this opened the floodgates for “creativity” by the vaccine makers. They could now play with adjuvants without fear of being sued. Profits soared, and the childhood vaccine schedule expanded rapidly. That freedom also meant cutting corners in safety testing. Most people assume vaccines are tested like other drugs—with placebo controls. But that’s not the case. Instead, vaccines are actually tested against other vaccines, which obscures negative outcomes. “The few studies that exist with saline placebos show how bad the vaccine actually is and how it makes you not only not respond to the disease when it comes around, but more susceptible to it in many cases,” Dr. Humphries explained.

When the conversation turned to polio, Dr. Humphries blew just about everyone’s mind on the internet. She challenged one of the most sacred beliefs in modern medicine: that vaccines eradicated polio. The truth is that polio wasn’t actually eradicated. “Polio is still here. Polio is still alive and well,” Dr. Humphries declared. It’s just that a few sleights of hand made the world believe otherwise. The real change that happened, according to Humphries, wasn’t the vaccine’s impact—it was the definition. “Polio is called different things today,” Humphries explained. “Whereas back in the 1940s, 1950s, the criteria for diagnosing polio were completely different to the year that the vaccine was introduced. The playing field, the goalposts—everything was changed… they were able to show a complete cascading drop of paralytic polio simply because of the way they changed the definitions of what polio is and what could cause it. After the vaccine rollout, cases that would’ve been diagnosed as polio were now labeled as Guillain-Barré syndrome, coxsackievirus, echovirus, or chalked up to lead or mercury poisoning.

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1905055665367986241

She also pointed to another key factor: environmental toxins. The rise in polio diagnoses, she said, mirrored the use of toxic chemicals like DDT. When the conversation turned to polio, Dr. Humphries blew just about everyone’s mind on the internet. She challenged one of the most sacred beliefs in modern medicine: that vaccines eradicated polio. The truth is that polio wasn’t actually eradicated. “Polio is still here. Polio is still alive and well,” Dr. Humphries declared. It’s just that a few sleights of hand made the world believe otherwise. The real change that happened, according to Humphries, wasn’t the vaccine’s impact—it was the definition. “Polio is called different things today,” Humphries explained. “Whereas back in the 1940s, 1950s, the criteria for diagnosing polio were completely different to the year that the vaccine was introduced. The playing field, the goalposts—everything was changed… they were able to show a complete cascading drop of paralytic polio simply because of the way they changed the definitions of what polio is and what could cause it.”

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1905056072642998351

After the vaccine rollout, cases that would’ve been diagnosed as polio were now labeled as Guillain-Barré syndrome, coxsackievirus, echovirus, or chalked up to lead or mercury poisoning. She also pointed to another key factor: environmental toxins. The rise in polio diagnoses, she said, mirrored the use of toxic chemicals like DDT. As use of neurotoxic pesticides like DDT, arsenic, and lead declined, so did toxic exposures that mimicked polio symptoms. Fewer kids were bathing in poisons that caused spinal nerve damage, so naturally, paralysis decreased. “The tonnage of production of DDT absolutely mirrored the diagnosis for polio,” Dr. Humphries explained. Even today, she added, “The countries that still make DDT… are where we’re still seeing this paralytic polio situation happen.”

And when it comes to the poliovirus itself? It’s not quite as harmful as people think. Humphries explained that polio is actually a “commensal”—a virus that lives in most people without causing harm. “95 to 99% of all polio is asymptomatic.” Dr. Humphries described a study of the Javante Indians, where “98 to 99% of every person they tested… had evidence of immunity to all three strains of polio,” yet none of the children were crippled. “They were like, ‘We don’t have any of that problem,’” she recalled. Dr. Humphries also cited a chilling story in history. In 1916, a Rockefeller lab in Manhattan set out with “the specific stated goal… to try to create the most pathological, neuropathological strain of polio possible.” Researchers injected monkey brains and human spinal fluid into monkeys.

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1905056279409651724

And that experimentation came with devastating consequences. “There was a big problem with that, which was [polio] released into the public by accident,” Dr. Humphries explained. “And the world experienced the worst polio epidemic on record. 25% mortality.” In short, Humphries argued that polio didn’t vanish because of vaccines. It disappeared under a mountain of redefinitions, environmental triggers, manmade disasters, and a lot of propaganda. Dr. Humphries also raised concerns about a link between vaccines and food allergies. “It’s very well known that the vaccines that have aluminum in them skew the immune system,” she said. Aluminum is added to many vaccines to make the immune system react more strongly. But when that reaction happens, the immune system can mistakenly target other things in the body, like food proteins.

For example, if a baby is exposed to something like peanuts or eggs around the time of vaccination, the immune system might mistakenly tag those foods as threats, potentially leading to a long-term food allergy. “So that’s kind of the paradox there [with vaccines],” Dr. Humphries explained. And then there’s mercury. Did you know that if a mercury-containing vaccine drops on the floor, “the HAZMAT people have to come and take that away”? Yet we inject it into 3-month-old babies.

https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1905056642837643586

Read more …

 

 

 

 

RFK vaccines
https://twitter.com/ChildrensHD/status/1905757292546462177

 

 

Bhakdi

 

 

Cows
https://twitter.com/AMAZlNGNATURE/status/1905842442693186021

 

 

Maruay
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1905998384189854189

 

 

Lovebird

 

 

Ninja
https://twitter.com/Yoda4ever/status/1905721654350868674

 

 

Coral forest
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1905674058189975930

 

 

Tartaria
https://twitter.com/wakenminds/status/1905352502939099184

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Mar 292025
 


Arnold Böcklin Mermaids at play 1886

 

Macron and Starmer’s Coalition of The Killing (SCF)
The EU Is Desperate To Sell Its People More Ukraine War (Marsden)
EU ‘Preparing For War’ – Hungary FM (RT)
Trump ‘Contemptuous’ of Zelensky – The Times (RT)
EU Waves White Flag, Prepares “Term Sheet Of Concessions” For Trade War (ZH)
Vance Delivers Trump’s ‘Message’ To US Troops In Greenland (RT)
Meloni Backs Vance’s Attack On EU (RT)
Bedlam, Pending (James Howard Kunstler)
Trump Asks SCOTUS To Allow Deportations To Proceed During Legal Challenge (ZH)
Judge Extends Injunction Against Trump’s Alien Enemies Act Invocation (ET)
USAID Officially Shuttered After Court Victory (ZH)
Donald Trump Taps Journalist Sara Carter As Next ‘Drug Czar’ (JTN)
FBI Whistleblowers Want Bureau To Review Their Cases (JTN)
California High Speed Rail Asks for $7 Billion More (Moran)
Global Firms Lining Up To Return To Russia – Putin Aide (RT)
Senator Cruz Files Companion Bill To Prohibit The Fed From Issuing a CBDC (CT)
EU Official Denies Anti-Free Speech Policies in Bizarre Letter to US Congress (Turley)
Stefanik Nomination Pulled to Protect Passage of Reconciliation (DS)

 

 

 

 

Excellent on everything about USA-CAN tariffs
https://twitter.com/JasminLaine_/status/1905282638304182670

 

 

Barron

Putin
https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1905385183143997928

HHS

Nap Mears
https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1905646698153869398

Jordan Belfort – Not a word

 

 

 

 

“European citizens – 500 million of them – are being subjected to non-stop messaging about the “need” to militarize their societies to “defend” against “Russian expansionism”.

Macron and Starmer’s Coalition of The Killing (SCF)

If there were a prize for Orwellian-named conferences, then the one held this week in Paris would surely be a top contender. Over the past month, there has been a slew of such gatherings in London, Brussels, and Paris. They have been conducted in a frenzy to thwart peace and prolong war – under the guise of “seeking security” against Russia. Some 30 nations attended the latest Paris summit, convened by France’s Emmanuel Macron, and entitled “Building a Robust Peace for Ukraine and Europe”. Europe is being gaslighted to view war as peace and accept that all economic resources must be dedicated to militarism. It is an insane war footing that is beyond any democratic or moral rationale. European Union member states participated as well as NATO and non-EU nations Britain, Norway, and Canada.

We should clarify that it was the elitist leaders of these countries who were present. Their lack of democratic mandate and authority is all too obvious to the people of Europe. Some EU nations, such as Hungary and Slovakia, have protested commendably about the unwavering belligerence and obscene waste of public resources for fueling a proxy war in Ukraine. Notably, too, the United States was not represented at the Paris summit. Coincidentally, this week, a leaked private group conversation between senior members of the Trump administration revealed their contempt for “loathsome” European leaders. One can understand why. In the grandeur of Élysée Palace, Macron hailed the non-entity gathering as the “Coalition of the Willing”. With this self-appointed virtue, the French leader was referring to countries that are willing to deploy military forces to Ukraine or maintain the supply of weapons.

Macron has been assiduously supported in this military venture by Britain’s Prime Minister Kier Starmer. The French and British leaders have intensified their efforts to directly insinuate Europe and NATO militarily in the three-year conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Their efforts are a result of American President Donald Trump engaging with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the proxy war between the U.S.-led NATO alliance and Russia. Trump’s diplomatic overtures with Moscow have sidelined the European states and have left them with an acute political problem of how to justify continuing military support for a failing Ukraine Project. The French, British and other European Russophobes do not want the war to end. That’s because they are wedded to the false narrative about defending Ukraine from “Russian aggression”. They are also committed to strategically defeating Russia using Ukraine as a proxy.

In Orwellian fashion, the European and NATO warmongers cannot openly state their nefarious objective. That would be politically fatal. Hence, they are cynically dressing up their motives with virtuous-sounding schemes, such as deploying “peacekeeping troops” in the event of any ceasefire deal that the Americans and Russians might negotiate. The relentless demonizing of Russia as a threat to Europe is amplified by a near-constant drumbeat of war. European citizens – 500 million of them – are being subjected to non-stop messaging about the “need” to militarize their societies to “defend” against “Russian expansionism”.

Read more …

“..the official name for this giant spending spree: SAFE – as in, “Security Action For Europe.”

The EU Is Desperate To Sell Its People More Ukraine War (Marsden)

I guess calling Ursula von der Leyen’s €800 billion defence spending plan, “ReArm Europe,” as she did initially, didn’t test well – probably because Europeans are too busy wondering why there’s no money for literally anything else that isn’t a weapons buying bonanza. So, what’s with this new name, Readiness 2030, that they’ve suddenly started using as a replacement term? And why 2030? Turns out that’s the magic number that European intelligence agencies, notably Germany’s, have cooked up for when Russia will supposedly be all set to roll into Europe. You know, the same intelligence outfits that just now decided that the EU is a sitting duck and could really use desperate measures now that its economy is circling the drain.

Like, for example, the new proposal for French citizens to invest their personal savings of a minimum €500 euros, for at least 5 years, to help mitigate the dwindling public support for military over social spending, as the French economy minister just announced. That 2030 date definitely has nothing to do with the fact that politicians need a solid five years of blank checks from taxpayers to funnel cash into the defense industry, conveniently boosting GDP after tanking their own economies with their self-inflicted crises. To really hammer home the “readiness” vibe while European leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron riff nonstop about war with Russia, the EU is now mass-marketing a self-assembled emergency kit to all member state citizens.

“Today, the EU launches its new #Preparedness Strategy. ‘Ready for anything’ — this must be our new European way of life. Our motto and #hashtag,” wrote EU Crisis Management commissioner Hadja Lahbib on social media. She also posted a video that she called a “what’s in my bag — survival edition” and started pulling out of her purse things like a Swiss Army Knife, something that looked like a can of tuna, playing cards “for distraction”, and a radio. “Everything you need to survive the first 72 hours of a crisis,” she said. After that? Well, maybe the Russian soldiers who have invaded Europe will have just gotten their fill of selfies with the locals (courtesy of the go bag’s backup phone charger) – #TanksForTheMemories – and their travel chess set matches – and will be on their way. Because it’s not like the EU is going to get anything under control in 72 hours. As if that was the point anyway.

Oh, and Queen Ursula’s EU Commission isn’t stopping at just one dumb rebrand. The bloc is also giving a fresh coat of paint to what was once known as “fiscal responsibility.” EU rules used to cap member states’ deficits at 3% of GDP – now, that little restriction is being rebranded as a “National Escape Clause”. As in, congratulations! You’re finally free from the oppressive burden of not bankrupting your country. Not long ago, a stunt like yanking off national debt brakes would have just gotten member states a spanking from her. Now? It’s “spend whatever you want – as long as it’s on weapons.”

And let’s talk about the official name for this giant spending spree: SAFE – as in, “Security Action For Europe.” Because nothing screams “SAFE” like blowing your savings together, like a group of teenagers maxing out their credit cards at the mall. Except instead of Sephora lip gloss or Louis Vuitton bags, it’s missiles and drones. And speaking of drones – all this rebranding of the defense spending spree was sparked by objections from some folks like Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, who was like, hey, we should at least pretend this is about dual use – you know, the drones we’re cranking out for Putin’s completely hypothetical invasion could also fight wildfires.

Italy’s Prime Minister Georgia Meloni also brought up the fact that if this is all supposed to be about security, then why is the focus on just making weapons and not also on improving essential service that are also kind of important if this is really about an emergency. Well, because that won’t make defense shares go up, will it, silly?

Read more …

“..as long as the war continues, pro-war European politicians can avoid taking responsibility for three years of failure, and avoid answering an extremely uncomfortable question: where is the money that was sent to Ukraine?

EU ‘Preparing For War’ – Hungary FM (RT)

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has accused Brussels bureaucrats of clinging to a “failed pro-war policy” in a desperate attempt to delay the moment when European taxpayers begin asking where the money spent on bankrolling Kiev has gone. The European Union recently advised its 450 million inhabitants to stockpile essential supplies for at least 72 hours, with EU Commissioner for Crisis Management Hadja Lahbib warning on Wednesday that the Ukraine conflict threatens the bloc’s overall security. Szijjarto said he initially thought the warning was some kind of joke or “trolling,” after Lahbib posted a bizarre video showing Europeans what to pack in a 72-hour survival kit. “But why, in the 21st century, should EU citizens prepare a survival kit? There’s only one explanation: Brussels is preparing for war,“ Szijjarto wrote in a post on X on Friday.

“At a time when there’s finally a real chance for a ceasefire and meaningful peace talks with [President Donald Trump’s] return to office, Brussels is going in the opposite direction, clinging to a failed pro-war policy.” Why? Because as long as the war continues, pro-war European politicians can avoid taking responsibility for three years of failure, and avoid answering an extremely uncomfortable question: where is the money that was sent to Ukraine? EU institutions in Brussels and individual member states have spent over €132 billion over the past three years supporting Kiev, and have pledged an additional €115 billion that has yet to be allocated, according to data from Germany’s Kiel Institute.

Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has pushed for a diplomatic resolution and sought to recoup what he estimates to be over $300 billion in US taxpayer money that his predecessor “gifted” to Kiev. Washington recently brokered a limited ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, placing a moratorium on attacks on energy infrastructure. Kiev, however, has repeatedly breached the ceasefire terms, according to Moscow. Despite the ongoing peace process, the EU has continued to push a hawkish agenda. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently unveiled an €800 billion plan to ramp up military spending through loans.

IMeanwhile, France and the UK continue to advocate for the deployment of a military contingent to Ukraine. Speaking after a summit in Paris on Thursday, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that a so-called “coalition of the willing” will seek to deploy a “reassurance force” to Ukraine after a peace deal with Russia is reached. The proposal to send troops has already been rejected by several EU members. The “coalition of the willing” – a phrase originally coined by the US in 2003 to describe countries backing the invasion of Iraq – now mostly refers to states that have pledged to continue supporting Kiev militarily, without necessarily committing to troop deployments.

Read more …

“US negotiators have apparently been working to extract even greater concessions from Kiev.”

Trump ‘Contemptuous’ of Zelensky – The Times (RT)

US President Donald Trump is both contemptuous of Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and assured of Kiev’s weakness in its conflict with Moscow, The Times’ Washington reporter Hugh Tomlinson suggested in an op-ed published on Friday. In light of this, Trump aims to get back all the funds the US has spent on the Ukraine conflict during his predecessor Joe Biden’s term, Tomlinson wrote. “Convinced of Ukraine’s weakness, contemptuous of Zelensky, and enraged by the billions of dollars in aid given to Kiev by Joe Biden’s administration, Trump has set out to get it all back, and more,” he said. Last month, Trump demanded that Kiev reimburse what he claimed was hundreds of billions of dollars in US aid via Ukraine’s mineral wealth, originally focusing on “rare earths.”

An earlier iteration of the deal was reportedly set to be signed in early March, only to be derailed by Zelensky’s public shouting match with the US president and vice president in the Oval Office. Following the altercation, Trump temporarily froze all military aid and intelligence sharing with Kiev. However, Washington reversed the decision after Kiev agreed to a 30-day partial ceasefire following US-Ukrainian talks in Jeddah earlier this month. Moscow has since accused Ukraine of multiple strikes on its energy sites, which are off-limits under the truce. After Monday’s separate talks with the US in Saudi Arabia, both Russia and Ukraine have said they’re willing to broaden the partial ceasefire to encompass a naval truce on the Black Sea. “For days, White House officials have insisted that an agreement on the minerals deal was close. Now a possible reason for the delay and the price of a ceasefire may be becoming clearer,” Tomlinson wrote, adding that “US negotiators have apparently been working to extract even greater concessions from Kiev.”

The latest version of the minerals deal proposed by the Trump administration is far harsher than earlier iterations, Reuters wrote on Thursday, citing a draft of the agreement. Under the newest terms, the US will recoup all aid money given to Ukraine since the escalation of its conflict with Russia in 2022 and charge a 4% annual interest rate on the sum before Kiev can access the fund’s profits. Zelensky has confirmed that he has received a fresh proposal from the US but insisted that the funding Kiev has received from Washington was a donation and not a loan. The US has allocated more than $123 billion to Ukraine in military and financial aid since 2022, according to data from Germany’s Kiel Institute. Trump maintains that Washington has spent more than $300 billion on supporting Kiev.

Read more …

Just write down all tariffs there are. Multi-dimensional puzzle, but do-able. Maybe DOGE can help.

EU Waves White Flag, Prepares “Term Sheet Of Concessions” For Trade War (ZH)

In what may be the first clear confirmation Trump’s plan to realign the global trader system is working, moments ago Bloomberg reported that the European Union is identifying concessions it’s willing to make to Donald Trump’s administration to secure the partial removal of the US tariffs that have already started hitting the bloc’s exports and that are set to increase after April 2. According to Bloomberg, EU officials were told at meetings this week in Washington that there was no way to avoid new auto and so-called reciprocal tariffs that Trump is launching next week. Discussions also began on what the contours of a potential deal to reduce them should eventually look like.

That prompted the European Commission (which handles trade matters for the EU) to start working on a “term sheet” for a potential concession agreement, which would set out areas for negotiations on the punitive trade measures, including lowering its own duties, mutual investments with the US as well as easing certain regulations and standards. In short, Europe – led these days by France’s Macron – did what Europe always does when led by the French: it surrendered.

The reciprocal tariffs which will be unveiled on April 2 are meant to strike out against what Trump considers to be unfair levies on US goods as well as non-tariff barriers, such as domestic regulations and how countries collect taxes, including the bloc’s value-added tax, digital taxes and regulations. The EU says its VAT is a fair, non-discriminatory tax that applies equally to domestic and imported goods (for more on the framework for Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, see this). The news, which is actually rather bad for Europe as it confirms the continent will be unable to retaliate fully and instead will be on the receiving end of Trump’s trade war, sparked a brief rally in the Euro…

Read more …

Watched bits on CNN. From the coverage, you’d swear Vance had arrived in Greenland with a squadron of hostile fighter jets.

But it’s simple. The entire Arctic will be contested. Greenland can’t defend itself. Denmark can’t defend it either, other than with NATO aka US assistance. Greenland doesn’t need the Denmark middleman.

Don’t be surprised if Trump DOES offer them $1 million per person.

Vance Delivers Trump’s ‘Message’ To US Troops In Greenland (RT)

US Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a forceful address to American service members at Pituffik Space Base in northwest Greenland on Friday, emphasizing the Trump administration’s determination to expand its permanent foothold on the Arctic island. The vice president’s visit came a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin outlined Moscow’s Arctic policy and warned that US annexation plans – dating back to the 1860s – should be taken seriously and not dismissed as “extravagant talk.” “I want to bring a message from President Trump,” Vance told the assembled airmen and guardians. “He’s grateful for your service, grateful for what you do up here… because the mission that you guys do is so important for the United States.”

While insisting that there are no “immediate plans” to expand the US military presence with new bases, Vance announced that Washington would “absolutely” increase investment – including “investing in additional military icebreakers, investing in additional naval ships that will have a greater presence in Greenland.” The vice president stressed that the US supports Greenlandic “self-determination,” but made it clear that Washington envisions a future in which the island ultimately aligns with America. “I think that you’d be a lot better coming under the United States security umbrella than you have been under Denmark’s,” he said. Vance accused the Danish government of failing the people of Greenland, claiming the island is “extremely vulnerable right now.”

Vance justified the administration’s increasingly assertive approach by pointing to rising Chinese and Russian activity in the region, describing Greenland as a geopolitical flashpoint in a new era of strategic competition. “We know that Russia and China and other nations are taking an extraordinary interest in Arctic passageways, in Arctic naval routes, and indeed in the minerals of the Arctic territories. We need to ensure that America is leading in the Arctic – because we know that if America doesn’t, other nations will fill the gap where we fall behind,” he said. He also highlighted Greenland’s critical role in US missile early warning systems, describing the base’s function as a vital shield “if a missile was fired from an enemy country.”

In his Thursday speech, President Vladimir Putin countered the US narrative, stressing that “Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic,” and emphasizing the region’s “enormous potential” for joint economic development, resource extraction, infrastructure projects and transport. “But at the same time, of course, we are concerned about the fact that NATO countries are increasingly often designating the Far North as a springboard for possible conflicts,” Putin added, noting that Moscow is “closely monitoring developments in the region” and “modernizing military infrastructure facilities.”

Read more …

Meloni also suggests sneaking Ukraine into NATO sans Article 5, but at least she’s not a warmonger. She’s just isolated.

Meloni Backs Vance’s Attack On EU (RT)

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has thrown her weight behind US Vice President J.D. Vance and his scathing criticism of Washington’s European allies last month. In a keynote address at the annual Munich Security Conference, Vance charged that the UK and several EU nations are failing to uphold free speech and democratic principles. “I have to say I agree,” Meloni told Financial Times. “I’ve been saying this for years… Europe has a bit lost itself.” She added that the believed the vice president’s ire was directed at a “ruling class,” that imposes its ideology on ordinary citizens.

The article in the British newspaper on Friday underscored Meloni’s ideological parallels with Trump and her lack of alignment with other European leaders on crucial matters. French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have marked out a position apart from US President Donald Trump, in particular on the Ukraine conflict, where the White House is pushing hard for a truce. The duo is spearheading efforts to bolster the Ukrainian military, and has proposed that a “reassurance force” be stationed in the country. Russia has warned against any NATO military presence in Ukraine, regardless of the form it takes.

Meloni said that in contrast to Macron and Starmer, she is not keen to position herself as a “protagonist” on the global stage. While she did not directly contest claims that Russia poses a threat warranting Europe-wide military expansion, she emphasized that Rome recognizes “threats can come from 360 degrees.” She was referring to illegal migration across the Mediterranean, which is a pressing issue in Italy. ”If you simply think that you can defend yourself, taking care of the eastern flank, and you don’t consider for example what happens in the southern flank, you will have a problem,” the prime minister explained. Russian officials deny any aggressive intentions toward NATO, viewing the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war instigated by the bloc. Moscow has accused European leaders of undermining Trump’s mediation efforts and preferring the continuation of hostilities.

Meloni

Read more …

“The current organized action in the federal judiciary against the executive is a grave sickness induced by the Deep State that must be corrected by the SCOTUS..”

Bedlam, Pending (James Howard Kunstler)

You understand, all these lawsuit shenanigans with select federal judges from Woke-crazed districts like Boston, San Francisco, Rhode Island, and the DC Beltway are aimed at provoking a second civil war. The objective is to burden Mr. Trump with so many restrictions on the executive that the country can’t be governed without declaring a national emergency. This is the Democratic Party’s desperate strategy to stay alive: to preserve the flow of taxpayer money to its minions stuffed into the organs of government like cancer cells, and the vast network of NGOs that employ its agents and spread its sickness. The Democratic Party is a malignancy within the republic and the money is the blood-flow that feeds it. DOGE is the chemotherapy that has starved some of the worst tumors, such as USAID.

Chemotherapy is always hard on the patient. Cancer is a very tough and resourceful enemy of a healthy body, and fights back by any means available. Ultimately, it seeks to kill the body it has come to inhabit — in this case, the body-politic of the USA. We are fighting for the life of our republic against a demonic enemy. The Democratic Party displays exactly the characteristics that human beings traditionally associate with pure evil. Above all, it lies about everything that it does. It lies, of course, in order to deceive you, so that you won’t understand how it is working to vanquish you and your posterity (your kids and their future). RussiaGate, Covid-19, the Ukraine War, all were marinated in lies. The lies operate through the perversion of language, so you won’t understand what is being said.

For instance: that the Democratic Party is working to save our democracy. That howler persists in their every public performance. The Democratic Party controls the major organs of information: The New York Times, CNN, Hollywood. They are the conveyers of lies, bamboozling the body politic to divide and conquer it. The Democratic party is a bad faith legion enlisted to defend the Father-of-Lies, America’s Deep State (a.k.a. the blob). That information regime is failing now along with the Democratic Party. The Deep State is failing with them. They are the parasites that kills its host. They intend to kill the republic as they go down. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is supposed to function like an immune system for the body politic, defending it against political sickness.

The current organized action in the federal judiciary against the executive is a grave sickness induced by the Deep State that must be corrected by the SCOTUS. We await that corrective action — a sweeping decision in reply to 100-plus lawsuits — that the chief executive is in-charge of the executive department and that his prerogatives to manage the staffing and actions of the executive agencies can’t be arrogated by federal judges. So far, obviously, the SCOTUS has not yet come to issue that decision. Many of you worry that they will fail to, because Chief Justice John Roberts appears to be somehow under the influence of the Deep State. Let’s have a look. Sheldon Snook is Special Assistant to Chief Justice Roberts, and is deeply involved in the day-to-day management of the SCOTUS. Sheldon Snook is married to Mary McCord. Ms. McCord has been a leading actor, via her various roles in the Deep State, in the seditious operations against President Trump since 2017.

As Acting Attorney General for National Security in 2017, Mary McCord, turned James Comey’s FBI jihad against National Security advisor Mike Flynn into a malicious and ultimately unsuccessful prosecution. (The DOJ dropped the charges, which Judge Emmet G. Sullivan refused to execute, thus necessitating a pardon from Mr. Trump.) Mary McCord was instrumental in the DOJ’s dishonest FISA application to surveil Carter Page (when Judge James Boasberg sat on the FISA Court). Ms. McCord quit the DOJ to become a counsel to the committee in the first impeachment of Donald Trump. In that role, she assisted Norm Eisen, the Chief Counsel to committee Chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler. Norm Eisen has gone on since that time to become the chief coordinator of lawfare operations against Mr. Trump. Mary McCord remains a senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, sponsored by George and Alex Soros. Sheldon Snook remains at John Roberts’ right hand.

Do you find these connections disturbing? Do they suggest where Justice John Roberts may stand in the war between the Deep State and President Donald Trump? I suppose we are going to find out. So, if the SCOTUS upholds the arrogation of executive powers and prerogatives by federal district judges, don’t expect Mr. Trump to roll over for that decision. It may come to pass, as per all the above, that he will be constrained to declare a national emergency to vacate the Deep State actors who are trying to make it impossible for him to govern, establishing special tribunals to disarm them. This, of course, will be seen by the Deep State and the Democratic Party as cassus belli, an excuse to declare war against the president. We seem to be headed in that direction. There will be friction, heat, and light.

Read more …

“..the DOJ argued that federal courts should not be allowed to interfere with diplomatic matters [..] The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President,” [..] “The republic cannot afford a different choice.”

Trump Asks SCOTUS To Allow Deportations To Proceed During Legal Challenge (ZH)

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to step in and allow the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador while a legal battle plays out in lower courts. The move comes two days after an appeals court upheld a temporary block on the Trump administration’s ability to deport illegal migrants under the Alien Enemies Act. In their request, the DOJ argued that federal courts should not be allowed to interfere with diplomatic matters, the Associated Press reports. “The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in the request. “The republic cannot afford a different choice.” Earlier this month US District Judge James Boasberg paused the flights by ruling that alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua deserve a hearing to deny they belong to the gang. Boasberg also demanded details on two flights on March 15 to determine whether the administration defied his oral and written orders to block them.

The Trump administration also asked the Supreme Court to overturn Boasberg’s order pausing flights, and to put that order on hold while they consider that request. “Those orders – which are likely to extend additional weeks – now jeopardize sensitive diplomatic negotiations and delicate national-security operations, which were designed to extirpate TdA’s presence in our country before it gains a greater foothold,” wrote Harris. The Supreme Court has asked lawyers for some of the deported Venezuelans to respond by 10am Tuesday to the Trump admin request. The DOJ has argued that Trump had the authority to declare TdA a foreign terrorist organization and deport them without hearings.

Government lawyers also refused to release flight information on the deportations, arguing that it would reveal sources and methods behind the deportations.”Once that secondary disclosure occurred, any opportunity for appellate review would be moot; the damage would be done, and the effect on United States foreign policy could be catastrophic,” the DOJ wrote. The DOJ insists that the government obeyed Boasberg’s written order blocking the flights, but says that his earlier oral order while the flights were in the air weren’t enforceable. Government lawyers also contend that Trump had the authority to conduct the flights as commander-in-chief of the US military and the country’s head of foreign affairs. Trump, meanwhile, has called for Boasberg’s impeachment – saying that the lifetime Obama-appointee is “a troublemaker and agitator.”

Read more …

“..court lacks jurisdiction over the allegations, “which challenge matters within the President’s unreviewable authority..”

Judge Extends Injunction Against Trump’s Alien Enemies Act Invocation (ET)

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on March 28 extended a temporary restraining order that prevents U.S. officials from deporting illegal immigrants from the United States solely on the basis of President Donald Trump’s invocation of a wartime law. Boasberg said in a 3-page ruling there is good cause to extend the order because Venezuelan nationals who sued over the invocation are entitled to relief preventing their removal “at least until they have had a chance to challenge that they are covered by the Proclamation.” “That is so because they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that they are entitled to such an opportunity; that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of emergency relief; and that the balance of equities and the public interest tilt in their favor,” the judge said, citing his previous rulings in the case.

No developments have taken place since the entry of the order and a similar narrower order that call those decisions into question, according to the ruling. The injunctions had been due to expire on March 29. They are now in place until April 12, or until further order from the court. Lawyers for the illegal immigrants had asked Boasberg to extend the orders, which were entered on March 15, just hours after Trump’s proclamation was made public. If the orders were allowed to expire, officials would resume deportation flights to El Salvador, the lawyers warned. U.S. Department of Justice attorneys had opposed the motion for an extension. They wrote in a filing that the court lacks jurisdiction over the allegations, “which challenge matters within the President’s unreviewable authority and, nonetheless, sound in habeas and must therefore be brought as habeas claims in district of confinement.”

The extension came on the same day the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the case, claiming that the block on utilizing the Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the Tren de Aragua terrorist gang “is forcing the United States to harbor individuals whom national-security officials have identified as members of a foreign terrorist organization bent upon grievously harming Americans.” Chief Justice John Roberts soon after set a deadline of 10 a.m. on April 1 for lawyers for the illegal immigrants to respond. The Alien Enemies Act states in part that whenever “a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government,” the president shall proclaim that nationals from that hostile nation shall be deported.

Trump said in a proclamation that Tren de Aragua, working with the Venezuelan government, has been “undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States.” A divided federal appeals court on March 26 upheld the temporary restraining orders from Boasberg. U.S. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, in the majority, said in a concurring opinion that the U.S. District Court in Washington had jurisdiction to hear the case, even though the illegal immigrants have been detained in Texas. U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Miller, also in the majority, said in a concurring opinion that the government does not face irreparable harm absent a stay, in part because officials can still deport the illegal immigrants through the typical deportation process outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, in a dissent, said that the legal claims should have been filed in Texas. He also said the government has shown that the restraining orders “threaten irreparable harm to delicate negotiations with foreign powers on matters concerning national security.”

Read more …

“As to Musk, the evidence before us creates a strong likelihood that he functioned as an advisor to the President, carrying out the President’s policies of shrinking government and reducing spending, not as an Officer who required constitutional appointment..”

USAID Officially Shuttered After Court Victory (ZH)

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has been officially shuttered after a federal appeals court Friday determined that the Trump administration could continue dismantling it. The ruling nullifies a lower court ruling that found that Elon Musk and DOGE were exercising enough independent authority to require Senate confirmation under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. “While defendants’ role and actions related to USAID are not conventional, unconventional does not necessarily equal unconstitutional,” wrote US Circuit Judge Marvin Quattlebaum, a Trump appointee. “And none of this is to say that plaintiffs will not be able to develop evidence of unconstitutional conduct as the case progresses. Time will tell,” he continued.

USAID was one of DOGE’s first targets. In addition to finding all sorts of waste, fraud and abuse, America First Legal found last week that USAID was behind an online censorship scheme. A week before that, a senior USAID official ordered the agency’s remaining staff to report to their now-former headquarters in Washington DC for an “all day” group effort to destroy documents, many of which contain sensitive information. After DOGE cleaned house, 26 current and former USAID employees sued – arguing that Elon Musk and DOGE have no actual independent authority. Earlier this month, US District Judge Theodore Chuang, an Obama appointee, indefinitely blocked Musk and DOGE personnel from shutting down the agency. In response, the 4th Circuit panel unanimously agreed that Chuang’s ruling should be nullified as the administration’s appeal proceeds – though just two of the judges on Friday found that Musk was likely acting constitutionally.

“As to Musk, the evidence before us creates a strong likelihood that he functioned as an advisor to the President, carrying out the President’s policies of shrinking government and reducing spending, not as an Officer who required constitutional appointment,” wrote Quattlebaum, who was joined by US Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer, a George HW Bush appointee. US Circuit Judge Roger Gregory said he only voted with his colleagues because the USAID workers sued the wrong defendants – and if they’d sued USAID itself, he would have sided with them. “We may never know how many lives will be lost or cut short by the Defendants’ decision to abruptly cancel billions of dollars in congressionally appropriated foreign aid,” Gregory wrote. “We may never know the lasting effect of Defendants’ actions on our national aspirations and goals. But those are not the questions before the Court today.”

Meanwhile, the US State Department on Friday announced that it is officially closing down USAID – with the formal last day set to take place before July 1, the NY Post reports. According to ABC News, ex-DOGE official Jeremy Lewin announced USAID’s shuttering in an internal memo earlier Friday. “Foreign assistance done right can advance our national interests, protect our borders, and strengthen our partnerships with key allies,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted to X. “Unfortunately, USAID strayed from its original mission long ago. As a result, the gains were too few and the costs were too high. Thanks to President [Donald] Trump, this misguided and fiscally irresponsible era is now over.” According to Rubio, the department is “reorienting” the agency’s foreign assistance programs, and will continue its “essential lifesaving programs.”

Read more …

Through her focus as a journalist, she knows more than anyone else on the topic. Still, must have been a big surprise to her.

Donald Trump Taps Journalist Sara Carter As Next ‘Drug Czar’ (JTN)

President Donald Trump on Friday announced that he has selected award-winning journalist Sara Carter to be his new “drug czar,” who will help with the administration’s efforts to curb the fentanyl crisis in the country. Carter, an investigative journalist who has covered the fentanyl crisis and border security, will officially serve as the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. “Sara is an Award Winning Journalist, who has been on the front lines of this International Fight for decades,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “From Afghanistan to our Border, Sara’s relentless pursuit of Justice, especially in tackling the Fentanyl and Opioid Crisis, has exposed terrorists, drug lords, and sex traffickers. “As our next Drug Czar, Sara will lead the charge to protect our Nation, and save our children from the scourge of drugs,” he added. “Congratulations Sara!”

Carter has received multiple national awards for her coverage of national security issues, including the Society of Professional Journalists’ Sigma Delta Chi award for her coverage of the brutality of the Gulf and Sinaloa Cartel wars along the U.S.-Mexico border. “It is truly an honor to serve President Donald J. Trump and be part of an administration committed to putting America first,” Carter wrote in a post on X. “I pledge to work tirelessly every day to identify the challenges we face and find the solutions that will Make America Safe Again, freeing us from the grip of deadly substances like fentanyl, heroin, opioids, and other dangerous drugs. “My greatest desire is to ensure this nation remains secure and safe—for my children, and for yours,” she continued. “I promise you I will never stop fighting.”

Read more …

Quite a few of them. All suppressed by Petere Strzok?!

FBI Whistleblowers Want Bureau To Review Their Cases (JTN)

FBI agents who blew the whistle on “wrongdoing” within the bureau — including one agent saying he wants to share further information about working under disgraced FBI official Peter Strzok — are calling upon the bureau, now led by Kash Patel, to review and resolve their claims of retaliation by Biden’s FBI. Empower Oversight sent an early March letter to FBI general counsel Samuel Ramer, asking the bureau for help related to the improper treatment of FBI agents and employees Garret O’Boyle, Marcus Allen, Stephen Friend, Zach Schofftsall, Monica Shillingburg, and Michael Zummer. The letter also includes new details on four clients whose names were redacted, at least one one of whom wants to share FBI abuses from his time working under Strzok, the fired FBI supervisory special agent deeply involved in Crossfire Hurricane.

At least some of the FBI whistleblowers have been locked in a legal battle with the bureau for years, alleging that their security clearances were stripped and their livelihoods threatened by the FBI. But now, with a new FBI chief in charge, the whistleblowers and their lawyers are asking the bureau to give the concerns of their clients a renewed look. FBI staff operations specialist Marcus Allen had his security clearance suspended “for questioning whether Director Wray had testified truthfully to Congress and other allegations based on SOS Allen’s political beliefs and concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine,” his lawyers said. Allen, who had been assigned to the FBI’s Charlotte Division, “was suspended indefinitely without pay” as a result of this and other disclosures.

Empower Oversight said that the FBI reached a settlement with Allen, but asserts that it has only mostly — but not fully — lived up to the terms of the agreement. His legal team says the FBI still needs to fix their client’s W2 tax forms and still needs to pay him the proper amount of leave owed. “While I feel vindicated now in getting back my security clearance, it is sad that in the country I fought for as a Marine, the FBI was allowed to lie about my loyalty to the U.S. for two years,” Allen said. “Unless there is accountability, it will keep happening to others. Better oversight and changes to security clearance laws are key to stop abuses suffered by whistleblowers like me.” “The actions taken against our clients were in reprisal for protected whistleblowing and/or improper targeting because of their political beliefs,” Jason Foster, the chair and founder of Empower Oversight, argued in the letter to the bureau.

“The common theme among most of our clients who had their security clearances suspended and or revoked is the FBI’s ability to indefinitely delay the process and financially pressure FBI employees by suspending their pay and blocking their ability to earn a living any other way. Most facing that dilemma simply resign with no prospect of a fair process to challenge it, which allows the pattern to repeat without remedy.” The lawyers for the FBI agents asked for a fresh review of the cases of their clients, saying that “if the review by your office alone does not lead to direct managerial action to remedy the harms and resolve our clients’ pending matters, we would be willing to propose to our clients that they enter into mediation facilitated by a neutral mediator — assuming an acceptable senior official with no animus toward our clients is delegated settlement authority to represent the FBI in the mediation.”

Empower Oversight added in the early March letter that “while we appreciate your review of these cases to explore ways to amicably resolve and remedy the harms the FBI has inflicted on our clients, we are also willing to engage in other good faith efforts to reach the same goals.” “A lot of our work has to remain confidential because some clients do not wish to become public figures. Sometimes though, it takes public scrutiny to move the needle,” Foster told Just the News. “These FBI clients have waited a very long time on a system that, as of today, is still failing to keep its promises to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. It’s past time to make good on those promises and give them real meaning in these cases.”

Read more …

“Not one more cent of federal money should be given to this turkey.”

California High Speed Rail Asks for $7 Billion More (Moran)

Helen Kerstein, a representative from the California Legislative Analyst Office, had the unenviable task of appearing before California lawmakers and giving them the bad news about the high-speed rail system currently under construction somewhere north of Los Angeles. Kerstein admitted to lawmakers that the project needs another $7 billion by June 2026 or work will grind to a halt.She said there was “no specific plan to meet that roughly $7 billion gap” and added that there is “some risk that that gap could grow.””Some risk” = drop-dead certainty. “This isn’t a way out in the future funding gap. This is a pretty immediate funding gap,” she said.

Phase 1 of the project was originally estimated to cost $33 billion. Current estimates are north of $128 billion, and with this latest ask, projected costs are useless in any realistic sense.The first phase will be from Merced to Bakersfield. That initial construction was chosen because it is the easiest to build topographically. It’s relatively flat, and some existing tracks can be used.About $23 billion has been spent to date, with the total cost of the Merced-Bakersfield stretch to hit $35 billion and be completed in 2033. Since nothing relating to this project has ever come in on time or under budget, you have to wonder why they even bother guessing.

New York Sun: “Besides the bleak news of the funding gap, KCRA reported that the High Speed Rail Authority further frustrated lawmakers when it only submitted an “incomplete project update” in time for the budget hearing and said it would submit a more complete update on the plan for the project sometime in the summer. A Democratic Assemblyman, Steven Bennett, told KCRA, “We have no plan, we have a good likelihood it’s going to get worse, and we have a short time to solve the problem.” The hearing came shortly after Mr. Newsom released an episode of his new podcast during which he touted work on the 171-mile Merced-Bakersfield segment. “We did the rail head. We’re starting to lay track. This thing is starting to get very, very real,” he said. “Now the hard work is behind us.” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy was in rare form after the announcement of the additional funding request.


“We did the rail head. We’re starting to lay track,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said on his podcast. “This thing is starting to get very, very real,” he added. “Now, the hard work is behind us.”

They’ve been trying to build this thing for a decade and have constructed just 22 miles of the 171-mile Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, the first phase of the 800-mile L.A. to San Francisco project. On what planet is “the hard work behind us”? It’s not like these big public works projects can’t be done. While California’s high-speed rail project has struggled, other states have seen similar undertakings completed in far less time. Florida’s Brightline, a privately owned passenger train that reaches speeds of up to 125 mph, was first proposed in 2012. By 2018, Brightline was operating between Miami and West Palm Beach. In 2023, it began running trains from Miami to Orlando, a distance of 235 miles, in 3.5 hours.

The company is also in the process of constructing a 218-mile system from Southern California to Las Vegas that will feature electric trains that can reach speeds of up to 200 miles per hour. It expects that line will be open in December 2028, missing its original goal of being functional in time for the 2028 Summer Olympics. The unstated goal that Newsom is banking on is making high-speed rail “too big to fail.” A few tens of billions of dollars more, and pulling the plug on it will be almost as expensive as building it. That’s why Duffy has to give the entire project the ax now. Not one more cent of federal money should be given to this turkey.

Read more …

“.. the group must make a decision on restarting production at the facility before the end of 2025..”

Global Firms Lining Up To Return To Russia – Putin Aide (RT)

Foreign firms that exited Russia due to sanctions linked to the Ukraine conflict are now seeking to return, according to President Vladimir Putin’s special economic representative, Kirill Dmitriev. Dmitriev, who is also the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), was responding to Korea Times report on Friday that South Korean companies are looking to resume operations in Russia, given US-led ceasefire talks between Moscow and Kiev. “Global companies are lining up to return to Russia, signaling renewed confidence and fresh opportunities in one of the world’s largest markets,” Dmitriev wrote on X on Friday.

More than 1,000 Western firms – from well-known retail firms to car giants – have exited the Russian market in the past three years. But as Ukraine conflict ceasefire talks gain momentum, major South Korean companies are reportedly stepping up feasibility studies on resuming operations in Russia. The push reflects Russia’s strategic importance for the country as a market, particularly in light of mounting tariff pressure from the US, the outlet said. LG Electronics is reportedly among the first, and recently partially resumed operations at its home appliance plant in Moscow, which produced washing machines and refrigerators, the outlet said citing industry sources. “The move is aimed at preventing deterioration of production facilities that have been idle,” an LG official told the Korea Times.

Hyundai Motor Group, which along with Kia held the top two spots among car brands in Russia in 2021, is also closely assessing the prospect of re-entering the Russian market. The group sold its St. Petersburg plant for just 10,000 rubles ($120) with a two-year buyback option 2023. It means the group must make a decision on restarting production at the facility before the end of 2025. Earlier this week, Italian household equipment manufacturer Ariston announced its return to Russia after exiting the market in 2022. The development seems to reflect an emerging trend of potential comebacks and buybacks by major foreign brands amid a US pivot on relations with Russia.

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin stated on Wednesday that each company’s case will be evaluated on an individual basis. Foreign firms that exited Russia “under government pressure” but maintained “jobs, contacts, and technologies,” along with a buy-back option, could be permitted to return, he said. Mishustin added that companies possessing unique expertise would also be welcomed— so long as they adhere to localization and investment conditions.

Read more …

You can bet the EU will love them.

Senator Cruz Files Companion Bill To Prohibit The Fed From Issuing a CBDC (CT)

US Senator Ted Cruz introduced a bill on March 26 to prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC). The “Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act,” would prohibit the Fed from offering certain products or services directly to American individuals, a key component of any CBDC. The Texas Republican’s bill can be considered a companion bill to Minnesota Republican Representative Tom Emmer’s anti-CBDC legislation, which was reintroduced on March 6. A companion bill is a piece of legislation that is similarly or identically worded to another bill, and introduced in the other chamber of Congress. Both bills state that the prohibition should not include any dollar-denominated currency that is open, permissionless, and private and “preserves the privacy protections of United States coins and physical currency.”

Since 2020, the Federal Reserve has been exploring a digital version of the US dollar. According to the CBDC Tracker, at least four research projects are currently underway by various Federal Reserve entities. Cruz has been a vocal opponent of CBDCs since at least 2022, when he introduced legislation that would ban the Fed from introducing a direct-to-consumer CBDC. He followed it up with similar legislation in 2023, and in 2024 sought to block the attempt by then-President Joe Biden’s administration to create a CBDC. Emmer said at a congressional hearing that “CBDC technology is inherently un-American” and warned that allowing unelected bureaucrats to issue a CBDC “could upend the American way of life.” While CBDCs have some purported benefits, critics of the technology have long said that digital currency issued directly to citizens could pose privacy infringement and government overreach.

However, some nations and regional governments are still exploring this technology. While European consumers show little interest in CBDCs, lawmakers in the region are pushing to create a digital Euro. Israel has released a preliminary design to create a digital shekel, and Iran will reportedly launch a CBDC in the near future. In the US, the creation of a CBDC has been met with more resistance. President Donald Trump has vowed to “never allow” a CBDC in the country, and Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, has said that the Fed will not issue a CBDC while he is in charge. Though CBDCs could modernize legacy financial systems and make them more efficient, they would also centralize the money supply.

Read more …

“..Jordan correctly raised the concern that the [EU’s] DSA could “limit or restrict Americans” constitutionally protected speech in the United States..”

EU Official Denies Anti-Free Speech Policies in Bizarre Letter to US Congress (Turley)

After returning recently from speaking at the World Forum in Berlin, I testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee and warned about the building threat to free speech from the use of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan has taken up the issue and received a letter from the EU’s Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Henna Virkkunen. The letter is both evasive and deceptive. In my book, The Indispensable Right, I detail how the DSA has been used to allow for sweeping speech investigations and prosecutions. In direct contradiction to past statements by the EU, Virkkunen denied any effort to regulate speech or enforce the DSA outside of Europe. What is particularly maddening is the false claim that the EU remains “deeply committed to protecting and promoting free speech.” Many in the free speech community view the EU and the DSA as the greatest threats to free speech in the West.

In his letter, Jordan correctly raised the concern that the DSA could “limit or restrict Americans” constitutionally protected speech in the United States by compelling platforms to crack down on what the EU considers “misleading or deceptive” speech. In her response, Virkkunen bizarrely describes the DSA as “content-agnostic” while insisting that the DSA “applies exclusively within the European Union.” That is not what EU officials previously said or what the law itself allows. Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA require all sites to identify, assess, and mitigate “systemic risks” posed by content, including any threats to “civic discourse”, “electoral processes,” and “public health.” It is up to the EU to define and judge such categories in terms of compliance.

The act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated its passage by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.” Some in this country have turned to the EU to force the censorship of their fellow citizens. After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech.

In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans. (Clinton spoke at the World Forum and lashed out at the failure to control disinformation). The EU immediately responded by threatening Musk with confiscatory penalties against not just his company but himself. He would have to resume massive censorship or else face ruin. This campaign recently came to a head when Musk had the audacity to interview former president Donald Trump. In anticipation of the interview, one of the world’s most notorious anti-free speech figures went ballistic.

Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton issued a threatening message to Musk, “We are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political — or societal — events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.” The EU has long been one of the most aggressively anti-free speech bodies in the world. It has actively supported the evisceration of free speech among its 27 member states. The EU is not “agnostic” when it comes to free speech; it has long championed a type of free-speech atheism. We have faced EU officials engaging in Orwellian doublespeak for years. Nevertheless, Virkkunen’s letter to Jordan stands out for its sheer mendacity.

Read more …

They need her vote in the House over the next year.

Stefanik Nomination Pulled to Protect Passage of Reconciliation (DS)

President Donald Trump on Thursday withdrew Elise Stefanik’s nomination to be United Nations ambassador because Republicans in the House will likely need the New York congresswoman’s vote to help ensure passage of the budget reconciliation bill, a senior White House official told The Daily Signal. Passing the debt ceiling and reconciliation packages are going to be difficult due to Democrats’ opposition and Republicans’ razor-thin majority in the House of Representatives no matter what, and Republicans can’t spare Stefanik’s vote. The American people need every Republican vote in the House to enact Trump’s agenda, the official said. Had Stefanik been confirmed by the Senate to be the United Nations envoy, her House seat would have been vacant for most of the year, and Republicans don’t have time to waste, according to the official.

The budget reconciliation process stands as Trump’s and congressional Republicans’ best—and likely only—hope to pass their agenda through Congress. Reconciliation is a process exempt from the filibuster 60-vote threshold required to end debate in the Senate. Through reconciliation, Congress decides which areas should get more money and which should get less based on the majority’s priorities. The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday released a stark forecast of when the government’s borrowing limit would be reached—increasing the urgency of congressional Republicans’ budget negotiations. The forecast warns that if the government doesn’t raise the debt limit, then it will no longer be able to borrow money and pay its obligations. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has previously said he hopes to pass a budget reconciliation bill by Memorial Day, which this year falls on May 26.

While Stefanik would likely have had no trouble getting the necessary Senate votes for confirmation, Republicans hold a narrow majority in the House with 218 seats, while Democrats hold 213 seats. There are currently four vacant seats. Special elections for two of those seats, both in Florida, will be held on April 1. Trump won the 6th Congressional District of Florida, formerly held by national security adviser Mike Waltz, by 30 points in November, but polls show Democrats might have a chance at flipping the seat in the special election there, threatening Republicans’ already narrow majority. Republican state Sen. Randy Fine holds a small lead, receiving support of 48.3% of the vote, compared with 44.2% of respondents who said they plan to vote for Democrat Josh Weil, according to a new St. Pete Poll.

Nonetheless, the National Republican Congressional Committee is confident that Waltz’s former seat will not flip blue. “Randy Fine will be a member of Congress,” Mike Marinella, an NRCC spokesman, told The Daily Signal. “Everything else is just noise.” Johnson has poured significant amounts of time, money, and effort into Fine’s campaign and is confident Fine will win, Greg Steele, his political communications director, told The Daily Signal. The speaker was highly concerned about New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, slow-walking the special election to replace Stefanik. Stefanik’s U.N. nomination was expected to move forward on April 2, the day after the Florida special elections, Axios reported last week. She would have been the last member of Trump’s Cabinet to get confirmed. Trump said on Truth Social he would find another place for Stefanik in his administration when possible.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Olivia

 

 

Goats
https://twitter.com/AMAZlNGNATURE/status/1905509081894260891

 

 

Quokka
https://twitter.com/buitengebieden/status/1905655101550723454

 

 

Babies
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1905662191404982768

 

 

Tiny egg

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Mar 022025
 
 March 2, 2025  Posted by at 11:05 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,  53 Responses »


Giovanni Bellini Pietà c1460

 

Putin Should Be The ‘Leader of The Free World’ – Medvedev (RT)
Musk Tips Vance To Become US President (RT)
US State Department Slashes USAID Assistance To Ukraine – NBC (RT)
Zelensky’s Presidency Is Over – Scott Ritter (RT)
A Dose Of Reality For The West’s Spoiled Brat (Amar)
Zelensky Is Done – Kiriakou (RT)
EU Trapped As ‘Cheerleader of US Hegemony’ – Jeffrey Sachs (RT)
EU Wants Another Year of War – Rubio (RT)
Russian Experts On The Trump Talks Fiasco (RT)
Trump’s Smackdown of Zelensky Wake-up Call for West (Sp.)
EU Delusional if It Hopes to Fill Ukraine Void Without US – Analyst (Sp.)
WaPo Hit By Second Wave Of “Rapid-Fire” Mass Subscription Cancellations (ZH)
Far-Right Leaders Gather In Madrid To “Make Europe Great Again” (Vracar)
What’s Behind Keir Starmer’s Latest Defense Spending Boost? (Jay)
A Spectre Is Haunting Germany (Beppler-Spahl)
German Factories Counting On Return of Russian Gas – Bloomberg (RT)

 

 

 

 

Peace

jennings

Greenwald

Dubinsky

Stephen Cohen 2019

Waltz

Rubio

Susan Rice

Bolton

 

 

 

 

“Europe is a feeble, quarrelsome old woman who is utterly dependent on US protection.”

Putin Should Be The ‘Leader of The Free World’ – Medvedev (RT)

Russian President Vladimir Putin should be the ‘leader of the free world’, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said. His remarks came in response to the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, who suggested that the bloc must assume the mantle from the US following Washington’s policy shift on Ukraine. On Friday, Kallas, along with several other EU leaders, reiterated their support for Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, who engaged in a heated exchange with US President Donald Trump in the White House on Friday. Trump accused Zelensky of not being grateful for American assistance and not being willing to negotiate an end to the Ukraine conflict, while the Ukrainian leader urged Washington to continue its military support for Kiev while warning that failure to do so would backfire on the US.

Kallas took a swipe at Trump, writing: “Ukraine is Europe! We stand by Ukraine. We will step up our support to Ukraine so that they can continue to fight back the aggressor [sic]. Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.” In an interview with RIA Novosti on Saturday, Medvedev, who now serves as deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, agreed that the title of ‘leader of the free world’ should be transferred from the US to another party, but not the EU. The world “needs one, and he exists. His name is Vladimir Putin,” he said. Medvedev also argued that while EU leaders might try to show some defiance in the face of US pressure, they will ultimately cave in.

“They will make some noise, post identical messages on social media, and return to their pen. Europe is a feeble, quarrelsome old woman who is utterly dependent on US protection.” The former president also reiterated that Moscow remains open to negotiations to settle the Ukraine conflict, but stressed that they must proceed on Russia’s terms. “We have always been ready for negotiations, and any negotiations require reciprocal steps. But only those steps that correspond to the reality on the ground and our basic law.” Russia has praised the Trump administration for attempting to resolve the Ukraine conflict and listen to Moscow’s geopolitical concerns related to it, while blasting the EU for attempting to fuel the hostilities by continuing to support Kiev.

Read more …

“Best VP ever and our future President..”

Musk Tips Vance To Become US President (RT)

Tech billionaire and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) chief Elon Musk has called US Vice President J.D. Vance “our future President,” fueling speculation about Vance’s political ambitions. Musk’s remarks followed a post on X addressing the tense exchange between Vance and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer over free speech policies during an Oval Office meeting on Thursday. As Starmer met with President Donald Trump and administration officials at the White House, Vance defended his stance on digital censorship, echoing comments he made during last month’s Munich Security Conference. “We also know there have been infringements on free speech that affect not just the British,” Vance said.

“Of course, what the British do in their own country is up to them, but it also impacts American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens.” Starmer dismissed Vance’s concerns, insisting that free speech remained firmly protected in the United Kingdom. “We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time,” the Labour Party leader said. “Best VP ever and our future President,” Musk wrote in a post on his social media platform X on Friday. Musk has been vocal in his criticism of Starmer and has frequently aligned with Vance on key foreign policy issues, particularly free speech and US aid to Ukraine.

Musk’s endorsement comes as Vance and Trump engaged in a heated exchange with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky at an Oval Office meeting on Friday. Vance, the first to address Zelensky, criticized his recent public appearances highlighting war devastation, accusing him of hosting “propaganda tours,” and labeling the Ukrainian leader “disrespectful.” The confrontation led to the day’s events being cut short, while Trump reportedly dismissed Zelensky and told him to return when he was “ready to pursue peace.” Musk later also chimed it, saying the Ukrainian leader had “destroyed himself in the eyes of the American people” in an X post.

Musk, who was appointed to lead DOGE when Trump took office in January, has been tasked with reducing government inefficiency and cutting federal spending. His endorsement of Vance marks the second time in recent weeks that he has expressed support for the vice president, previously posting: “Best VP ever and hopefully our future President.” The 40-year-old Vance is the third-youngest vice president in US history. His relationship with Trump has evolved significantly since the president’s first term. Once a vocal critic of Trump, Vance opposed his candidacy in 2016, calling him “cultural heroin” for conservatives and questioning his character. However, he later shifted his stance, securing Trump’s endorsement in his successful 2022 Ohio Senate bid, a move that cemented his place within Trump’s political inner circle.

Read more …

“He imposed a 90-day funding freeze on the agency and transferred oversight of its programs to the direct control of the State Department..”

US State Department Slashes USAID Assistance To Ukraine – NBC (RT)

The US State Department has terminated a US Agency for International Development (USAID) initiative for a large-scale effort to restore Ukraine’s energy grid, which has been severely damaged by Russian strikes, NBC News reported on Friday, citing sources. USAID, Washington’s primary agency for funding political projects abroad, found itself in the crosshairs of President Donald Trump shortly after taking office, accusing it of corruption and inefficiency. He imposed a 90-day funding freeze on the agency and transferred oversight of its programs to the direct control of the State Department. As part of the crackdown, the State Department not only stopped a USAID program that invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Ukraine’s power grid, but also sharply reduced the agency’s footprint in Ukraine, the network said.

Before the reported cuts, 64 American government employees and contractors were on the ground supporting the agency’s mission; now only eight are expected to remain, with the Trump administration placing the remaining USAID personnel on administrative leave and ordering all but “critical” staff to return to the US, NBC reported. ”It significantly undercuts this administration’s abilities to negotiate on the ceasefire, and it’d signal to Russia that we don’t care about Ukraine or our past investments,” a USAID official working on the Ukraine mission told the outlet, adding that the decision would significantly undermine the country’s economic resilience. In 2024 alone, USAID allocated $825 million to support Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

The move comes as Russia continues to carry out drone and missile strikes on Ukraine’s defense-linked energy infrastructure to undermine the country’s military effort, resulting in recurring rolling blackouts. Moscow insists that it never targets civilians. The timing of the reported USAID pullout coincides with a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky in the White House, in which the US president accused Zelensky of being ungrateful for the substantial aid provided to Kiev, and of being unwilling to negotiate an end to the conflict with Russia. As a result of the heated exchange between the two sides, an agreement granting the US rights to Ukraine’s natural resources as compensation for past aid was not signed.

Read more …

“Ukraine cannot afford to have him as their leader, and I think you’re going to see Zelensky being exited stage right as rapidly as possible..”

Zelensky’s Presidency Is Over – Scott Ritter (RT)

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s presidency is over, former US Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter has told RT. Zelensky’s five-year term in office concluded in May 2024, but he has refused to hold new elections, citing martial law. According to Ritter, Washington is “fed up” with Zelensky, who US President Donald Trump recently labeled a “dictator without elections,” and is moving to unseat him. Ritter’s words come on the heels of a meeting in the White House between Zelensky, Trump, and US Vice President J.D. Vance on Friday, in which a heated exchange took place after Trump told the Ukrainian leader that he would have to negotiate peace with Russia. Zelensky argued that Moscow cannot be trusted and insisted that the US continue supporting Kiev.

Trump said Zelensky is “in no position to dictate” to the US, accusing him of being ungrateful for America’s substantial aid and questioning his willingness to bring about an end to the conflict with Russia. “Zelensky is not a democratically elected president… This was a deliberate setup by the president of the US. The Trump administration is fed up with Zelensky,” he said, arguing that he brought it upon himself by openly antagonizing Trump. This is the end of Zelensky’s presidency. He will not recover from this. Ukraine cannot afford to have him as their leader, and I think you’re going to see Zelensky being exited stage right as rapidly as possible. According to Ritter, the relationship between Trump and Zelensky is now “fundamentally broken.” However, unlike Ukraine, he said, Russia has never “lost the discipline” in contacts with the US and disrupted peace efforts, despite “some fundamental disagreements” on how to resolve the conflict.

“Zelensky was the greatest impediment to the US and Russia to achieve a peace deal… He had to be removed, and now he has been removed,” Ritter explained. He went on to say that while Zelensky’s removal may be “the beginning of the political collapse of Ukraine,” it might not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of peace because “the war is all but over at this point.” Zelensky has so far dismissed calls to step down. In an interview with Fox News following the meeting with Trump and responding to a call from US Senator Lindsey Graham “to resign and send somebody over that we can do business with,” Zelensky said he won’t do so unless asked by the Ukrainian people.

Read more …

“Churchill was quite a monster – ask the miners or the Indians, for instance – who nonetheless played an important role in defeating Nazi Germany. But he was not a puffed-up provincial comedian.”

A Dose Of Reality For The West’s Spoiled Brat (Amar)

“A grandiose failure” – take it from the best Ukrainian news site. That’s how Strana.ua has summed up the visit of Vladimir Zelensky, past-best-by-date leader in embattled Kiev, to Washington. And no one who watched the no-holds-barred shouting match between Zelensky, on one side, and US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, on the other, can disagree. Indeed, no one is even trying to disagree: Independent of political bias, there is unanimity in Western mainstream media that this was a historic catastrophe for Zelensky and his version of Ukraine. “A disaster” and “bitter chaos” (The Economist); a “meltdown” that “could not have gone worse” (Financial Times); a “historic escalation” (Spiegel); a “disaster for Ukraine” and a “spectacular confrontation” (Le Monde); an “upbraiding” and “debacle” for Zelensky (New York Times) and so on and so forth… You get the gist.

And please don’t blame me for how boring a review of Western mainstream media is; it’s not my fault that the vaunted press of the self-appointed “free world” and “garden” of “values” offers less diversity of views than the Soviet media circa 1986. The basic idea is very basic indeed: “This was awful because poor Zelensky got bullied.” Some especially eager information war cadres are already fingering J.D. Vance as the one to blame. The Economist, for instance, simply “knows” that the US vice president set up the Ukrainian leader. But then, the same Economist also helped spread the moronic lie that Russia blew up its own Nord Stream pipelines. Intriguingly, Ukraine’s Strana.ua, already mentioned above, sees things very differently. Its take is that “Zelensky himself provoked the scandal by his rudeness” toward both Vance and Trump. The latter, these Ukrainian observers who know their own vain and erratic leader all too well think, were still holding back, staying “quite calm and respectful” toward Zelensky.

For what it’s worth, my personal impression is that Zelensky did provoke the fight; that Vance and Trump treated him harshly and humiliatingly in return; and that Kiev’s prima-donna-in-chief deserved every last bit of it – and then some. Yes, after more than half a decade of Western leaders and mainstream media first building an insane personality cult around him and then babying and coddling him, it was a relief to see him talked to in earnest. And yes, it was glorious. Because Trump is right: Yes, Zelensky has been recklessly toying with World War III. And no, his regime has not been “alone.” On the contrary, without massive Western support that it should never have received it would long have ceased to exist. Vance also has a point: Ukraine is running out of soldiers, and Ukrainian men are hunted like animals to be shipped off to a hopeless meatgrinder war.

Finally, both are right: Zelensky displayed crude disrespect. Don’t get me wrong: In general, I am all for massively disrespecting the American empire. But once you’ve chosen to be its puppet and sold your own nation to it, you might as well cut out the grandstanding. In short, at long last, a dose of reality for the West’s spoiled brat in Kiev. And no more daft Churchill comparisons, please. In reality, like Stalin, Churchill was quite a monster – ask the miners or the Indians, for instance – who nonetheless played an important role in defeating Nazi Germany. But he was not a puffed-up provincial comedian.

Read more …

“In the US Congress, we have workhorses and we have show horses. And Lindsey Graham is a show horse. So when you’ve lost Lindsey Graham, you’ve lost the war.”

Zelensky Is Done – Kiriakou (RT)

Vladimir Zelensky is done as the leader of Ukraine and should be removed, journalist and former CIA analyst John Kiriakou told RT, commenting on the verbal spat between Zelensky and US President Donald Trump at the White House on Friday. The meeting became heated when Zelensky resisted Trump’s demand to negotiate peace with Russia, leading the latter to accuse him of ingratitude and an unwillingness to end the conflict. Consequently, Zelensky left the White House prematurely, without signing an agreement that would have granted the US rights to Ukraine’s natural resources. The planned joint press conference was canceled. “For all intents and purposes, Zelensky is done. I wouldn’t be surprised if in three months Zelensky is living in London or some such place,” Kiriakou said on Friday.

He noted that Zelensky, who, citing martial law, refused to step down after his presidential mandate ended last year, will “have to be removed” because he “continues to be an impediment to peace.” “You know, they’ve got this provision in the Ukrainian constitution where they don’t have to have elections during a time of martial law…Maybe it’s time to take a second look at that, get him out, and elect somebody who can negotiate in good faith with the Russian government,” the analyst suggested. Kiriakou noted that without the support of Washington, which Kiev effectively lost when Zelensky antagonized Trump on Friday, the Ukraine conflict can be considered “over.” “[Zelensky] can’t rely on NATO… if the US pulls out. And it looks very much that the US is in the process now of pulling out. The conflict is over. It’s done. This is today’s reality,” he stated.

Zelensky has previously dismissed the possibility of stepping down. In an interview with Fox News following the meeting with Trump, he responded to a call from US Senator Lindsey Graham “to resign and send somebody over that we can do business with.” Zelensky stated he won’t do that unless asked by the Ukrainian people. According to Kiriakou, losing the support of such a pro-Kiev figure as Graham is yet another sign that Zelensky time at the helm is over, as is the conflict itself. “In the US Congress, we have workhorses and we have show horses. And Lindsey Graham is a show horse. So when you’ve lost Lindsey Graham, you’ve lost the war. [It] is a message to Vladimir Zelensky that it’s time to just stop,” the analyst said.

Read more …

He said it before “Zelensky went to Washington”. Things are different now.

EU Trapped As ‘Cheerleader of US Hegemony’ – Jeffrey Sachs (RT)

The European Union’s unwavering support for US hegemonic policies has ensnared it in a precarious position, according to award-winning American economist and public policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs. In an interview with RT on Friday, Sachs discussed the Ukraine conflict, the EU’s geopolitical stance, and the broader implications of Washington’s foreign policy. He emphasized the necessity for the EU to assert its independence from Washington’s influence, advocating for the establishment of its own foreign policy and the normalization of relations with Moscow. The bloc “needs to have its own foreign policy. It needs to re-engage with Russia”, Sachs stated, highlighting the significance of the EU’s $20 trillion economy and the critical need for it to operate in harmony with the global economy.

When questioned about the EU’s potential to detach from Washington’s influence, Sachs affirmed: “I think it can and should be”. He criticized the bloc’s approach of” following the US in a blind kind of way, just trying to be the great cheerleader of US hegemony.” Sachs argued that US unipolar dominance must evolve, expressing concern over the current state of international discourse, where everything is broken down, and the hate talk is nonstop for everybody. Addressing the Ukraine conflict, Sachs suggested that both the EU and Kiev have suffered by aligning too closely with Washington’s policies. Now they don’t know quite what to do, he remarked, referencing former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s famous observation: “To be an enemy of America is dangerous, to be a friend of America is fatal”.

In the interview with RT, recorded before Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s visit to Washington, Sachs described the trip for the signing of a meaningless document on mineral rights as “sad, desperate, confused”. The meeting between Zelensky and US President Donald Trump devolved into an openly hostile confrontation, during which Trump accused Zelensky of ingratitude and unwillingness to negotiate an end to the Ukraine conflict. According to Sachs, “a true peace” in the conflict could be achieved, as there is “no fundamental conflict between the US and Russia”. Moscow and Washington are currently engaged in negotiations following a phone call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this month, and subsequent high-level talks between Russian and U.S. delegations in Saudi Arabia.

Read more …

“Rubio emphasized that Washington is seeking peace for Ukraine, adding that if there’s even a 1% chance of that happening, it “needs to be explored.”

EU Wants Another Year of War – Rubio (RT)

Some EU countries would favor the conflict between Russia and Ukraine dragging on longer with the idea of weakening Moscow, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has charged, stressing that Washington’s goal is to end the hostilities. Rubio’s comments came after a heated meeting between President Donald Trump and Vladimir Zelensky on Friday, which triggered accusations from American officials that the Ukrainian leader showed “disrespect” and ingratitude towards the US. In an interview with CNN on Friday, Rubio emphasized that Washington is seeking peace for Ukraine, adding that if there’s even a 1% chance of that happening, it “needs to be explored.” He also suggested that some of his EU counterparts are not exactly on board with this approach.

He cited an unnamed European foreign minister as saying that the EU’s plan is to allow “the war go… on for another year and at that point Russia will feel so weakened that they’ll beg for peace.” Rubio criticized this approach, stating, “That’s another year of killing, another year of dying, another year of destruction, and by the way, not a very realistic plan in my point of view.” Rubio has also called on Zelensky to apologize for what he called an “antagonistic” approach during the meeting, rebuking him for his stance on an agreement granting the US rights to Ukraine’s natural resources, which was set to be signed at the White House but ended up in limbo due to the spat that ensued. While Zelensky – who urged the US to continue military support for Ukraine while warning that the failure to do so would backfire – was heavily criticized by Trump administration officials and Republicans, many EU leaders rallied to his support.

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU Commission, praised Zelensky’s “dignity” and reassured him that he is “never alone.” Friedrich Merz, Germany’s presumed future chancellor, said that “we must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war.” Meanwhile, Kaja Kallas, the EU’s top diplomat, went even further, issuing a not-so-veiled rebuke to Trump. “We stand by Ukraine. We will step up our support to Ukraine so that they can continue to fight back the aggressor… Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge.” Whereas Russia has praised the Trump administration for its willingness to find ways to resolve the Ukraine conflict, including examining its root causes, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has denounced the EU for what he described as a desire to further escalate the hostilities.

Read more …

4 “experts”. This is Fyodor Lukyanov’s contribution.

Russian Experts On The Trump Talks Fiasco (RT)

“Vladimir Zelensky underestimated the scale of the shift that occurred in American politics after Donald Trump’s arrival. He was misled by the fact that for three years, no one in the West considered it acceptable to publicly contradict Ukrainian representatives, especially Zelensky himself. Diplomats, politicians, and cultural figures from Ukraine were allowed almost anything. They are victims; they have the right. Permissiveness played a cruel joke on the Kiev leader. But the issue is not just about someone’s bad manners; that is a private matter. Such a model of behavior was possible as long as the Ukrainian conflict was perceived in the West as a battle of the right side of history against the wrong one. And in such a battle, almost anything is allowed. And no one will condemn it.

Trump views the war as an annoying nuisance, a mess in which all participants are to blame, especially his predecessor. The key takeaway from Trump during this truly historic interaction in the White House was: I am a mediator; I am not on anyone’s side; I want the war to end. And this is a fundamental shift. Strangely enough, Trump has taken a position of classic diplomacy, which is necessary to end wars. Zelensky and his supporters reject it, counting on a clear victory. But that is unattainable. Zelensky’s problem now is that, having made a fatal mistake in his choice of strategy in the White House, he has disarmed even his support group in Europe and within the US itself.

They may express as much outrage as they want about Trump and demand continued aid for Ukraine, but Zelensky’s mistake is glaring. The opportunity to sway the American president to a more favorable position has been lost. And two small remarks. First, Zelensky now has the opportunity to appreciate the restraint and even tactfulness of the Russian president, no matter how they feel about each other. Second – the war continues.”

Read more …

“Europe May Pay Lip Service to Zelensky, But Taking Over for the US is Burden too Big to Bear..”

Trump’s Smackdown of Zelensky Wake-up Call for West (Sp.)

The fierce clash between President Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky on live TV shocked US allies and prompted devastated Washington pundits to start writing requiems to ‘Pax Americana’. Sputnik reached out to a pair of veteran observers of international politics and defense policy to explain the blowup, and what comes next. “Zelensky came all the way to Washington to sign an open-ended, financially unlimited, no security-guarantee deal marketed in his own country as the opposite. Trump and Vance openly declared that he’s been defeated, is gambling with the lives of his own people, that he has no men left and that peace must be made,” renowned Turkish journalist Ceyda Karan told Sputnik, commenting on Friday’s epic slugfest.

“They said outright that Zelensky is going to drag the whole world into World War III. What’s striking here is that Trump is presenting the truth to the Western world, which has become accustomed to political correctness,” Karan stressed, outlining the most important takeaway from the verbal altercation. Zelensky tried “to play the role of a ‘hero being mistreated’ by the US president. The issue of Trump demanding the rights to Ukraine’s resources has been presented to the world as if Zelensky were a victim. However, he himself has been talking about this throughout the past year. When the US Congress had difficulty allocating new military aid to Kiev, it was Zelensky who offered resources, sitting next to Senator Lindsey Graham and listening to his rhetoric about ‘fighting to the last Ukrainian’,” the observer recalled.

He repeated this idea while meeting Trump on the eve of the 2024 election at Trump Tower in September, and again before Ukraine’s parliament at the end of last year during his speech on his so-called ‘victory plan’, “which was ridiculed even by Western media,” Karan said. “To replace the US, Europe at least has to double its support for Ukraine,” Swedish Armed Forces veteran and politician Mikael Valtersson told Sputnik, commenting on European leaders’ plans to organize a hasty summit on Ukraine support in the fallout from the Trump-Zelensky blowup. “Picking up the slack for the US would be “a very heavy burden for Europe to carry,” Valtersson explained, particularly amid “growing resistance among the European population to spending huge amounts of money on Ukraine,” which would only increase further if spending did.

If European powers do move forward anyway as the US seeks normalization, they would drive themselves into a corner trying “to continue isolating Russia” alone, without Washington’s backing, which would in effect mean they “will be isolated themselves.” Valtersson expects any public European “united front” behind Zelensky among the Europeans to “crack” over time as alternative parties seeking peace and realism in Russia policy rise, while other countries “pay lip service to supporting Ukraine” without actually ramping up commitments. “Europe will be divided into three groups; those that ardently support Ukraine, those that pretend to support Ukraine and those that fight for a detente and a peaceful resolution of the conflict,” the observer predicted.

Read more …

“NATO is finished,” the analyst speculated, since the EU’s main military wing is “paralyzed without its transatlantic partner.”

EU Delusional if It Hopes to Fill Ukraine Void Without US – Analyst (Sp.)

Volodymyr Zelensky’s meeting with Donald Trump in Washington was a disaster, with the Ukrainian leader forced to leave early after a public altercation with the US President. EU member states are “incapable of sustaining Ukraine’s military needs, let alone facilitating post-conflict reconstruction, estimated at tens of billions of dollars,” Joseph Siracusa, global futures professor, Curtin University, Perth, Australia, told Sputnik. After the Trump-Zelensky blowout, losing US muscle will be “fatal” for Ukraine, triggering a scramble for power in Kiev and the need to adjust to the reality of being “excluded from NATO though permitted to enter the EU,” he added. Furthermore, “NATO is finished,” the analyst speculated, since the EU’s main military wing is “paralyzed without its transatlantic partner.”

Read more …

Bezos needs to weed out the extremists. He must create X on paper.

WaPo Hit By Second Wave Of “Rapid-Fire” Mass Subscription Cancellations (ZH)

The Washington Post was hit with another wave of subscription cancellations—its second in months—following an op-ed by its owner, billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, in which he advocated for “personal liberties and free markets.” Bezos announced on Wednesday morning that the WaPo’s opinion pages will be “writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.” As Bezos explained on X: There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.

I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity. According to NPR News, this led to the immediate resignation of Opinions Editor David Shipley and the cancellation of 75,000 digital subscribers. The number of cancellations comes from a person who asked for anonymity because of the fear of repercussions at the Post.

The rapid-fire cancellations since Wednesday represent a historic level of reader fury over the changes. Yet they are only the most recent wave in a series of mass cancellations that began in late October. That was when Bezos killed a planned endorsement of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. Between then and Election Day, more than 300,000 subscribers canceled the Post, as NPR first reported last month. That was more than 12% of digital subscribers, which make up the vast majority of the paper’s paid circulation. The Post has aggressively wooed new subscribers to replace them, boosting circulation by 400,000, often at highly discounted rates, according to a Post executive. Google Search trends data showed “cancel Washington Post” surged the most in DC, Maryland, and Virginia, three states home to the radical left – and subs of WaPo that would be the most angry with Bezos shifting towards libertarian views.

Read more …

Far-right has become a meaningless term. Anyone not explicitly woke can apply. Is Trump far-right? Plenty people would say yes, but that doesn’t make it true. How about Orban? Putin?!

Far-Right Leaders Gather In Madrid To “Make Europe Great Again” (Vracar)

Representatives of the Patriots for Europe (PfE), a far-right bloc in the European Parliament, met in Madrid for a summit hosted by Spain’s Vox party on February 8-9. During the meeting, they attacked policies and trends that they say are stripping Europe and Europeans of their supposed greatness. Riding the wave of Donald Trump’s return to the White House, they announced their intention to “make Europe great again.” In attendance were Viktor Orbán, Marine Le Pen, and right-wing politicians from Estonia, Portugal, Greece, and Italy, among others. Their speeches stuck to familiar tropes, criticizing the European Union’s climate and migration policies and railing against “wokeism” and “progressive” domination over policymaking in Brussels. However, this gathering took place in a different context than far-right exchanges in previous years.

Trump’s victory has emboldened the far-right across Europe, reinforcing their belief that their moment has arrived. “The Trump tornado has changed the world in just a few weeks,” Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán declared. “Yesterday we were heretics, today we’re mainstream.” This boost in confidence also coincides with right-wing electoral gains across Europe. Most notably, Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD)—not part of the PfE—is polling in second place ahead of the upcoming elections. Much of the summit’s centered on sovereignty, though not the kind of sovereignty that promotes solidarity and self-determination. Instead, xenophobia and exclusion are at the center of the PfE’s vision of society, with some speakers going so far as to call for a “new Reconquista.”

“Migration policy is out of control, and the bottomless pit of immigration is emptying our coffers and filling our prisons,” said Marine Le Pen of France’s National Rally. When it comes to their own ranks, however, the far-right seems to be all about internationalism. PfE leaders eagerly discussed strengthening transatlantic alliances—not just with Trump’s administration, but also with far-right leaders in Latin America. “Patriots is a transatlantic party, but we are also open,” said Vox representative Jorge Buxadé just ahead of the meeting. “It is not only a transatlantic alliance with the North, with the US, but also with the South. That is where Vox plays a key role—bridging the connection with (Argentine President) Milei and (Paraguayan President) Peña.”

The speeches delivered on Sunday made it clear that European far-right leaders expect Trump’s presidency to bolster their influence and help them strengthen ties with like-minded political movements worldwide. Those attending the summit also looked to Trump’s presidency as a weapon against “wokeism” and what they describe as a progressive takeover of political institutions. In Europe, they frame this belief as a critique of EU leadership on climate change, industry, and governance. In his speech, Orbán went so far as to claim that “Europe has been kidnapped by the progressive ideology just like the mythological Europa was taken by the bull.”

While Ursula von der Leyen’s leadership faces criticism from all sides, left-wing parties focus on her austerity-driven policies, which have fueled poverty and inequality across Europe. The left’s critique is based on real economic struggles, advocating for social justice and peace, in reflection of the people’s demands. In contrast, PfE offers no such alternative. While some, including Lega’s Matteo Salvini, mentioned Europe’s deepening industrial crisis, their proposed solutions for popular discontent remain unchanged: xenophobia, securitization and militarization, climate denialism, and further cuts to public services. As a result, while PfE leaders believe their movement is the future of Europe, their reliance on the same neoliberal policies they claim to oppose suggests otherwise.

Read more …

A small dick?!

What’s Behind Keir Starmer’s Latest Defense Spending Boost? (Jay)

Who is Sir Keir Starmer and whose interests does he represent? Even his strongest supporters from the West are beginning to notice that there hasn’t been one single policy strategy since he became British PM, which is for the actual British public themselves. Traditionally one tends to think of Labour PMs wanting to make a splash with the poor in their first six months in office, but all Starmer has done has made this particular group even poorer. His recent announcement in the House of Commons (Britain’s parliament) like many others since he took office in the summer of 2024, surprised everyone, even his own MPs. He is raising the percentage of the country’s GDP usually prescribed to defense spending from 2.3% to 2.5%, which, in practical terms means that the £53.9bn usually put aside for defense spending in one year will rise a further £13.4bn from 2027.

What is behind this somewhat odd ruse? Britain’s relations with the U.S., it should be pointed out, are at an all-time low since Trump took office. Did the U.S. president give signals to Downing Street that this is what he wanted? Possibly. Given the terrible relations between London and Washington, it pulls the UK out of the hole that it largely dug itself with both its foreign secretary running down Trump in a YouTube rant and Peter Mandelson doing much the same, contributing towards a bard atmosphere. So can Starmer save it and work with Trump?

This is a harder question as the British PM is leading the charge on supporting the Zelensky regime further with military support. The timing is of course paramount as Trump’s swift moves to get a peace deal have gained momentum since Zelensky confirmed that he has agreed to a mineral deal. The deal itself does not guarantee a peace deal, but it certainly paves the way as now Trump has a stake in Ukraine and the country being peaceful. It also sends a signal to Putin. Almost at the same time the Ukrainian parliament voted to continue martial law in Ukraine, which, in theory allows Zelensky to continue as unelected President, we can conclude that Trump has let Zelensky buy some time.

But as usual it is the Europeans who are the real threat to Zelensky’s longevity. Starmer’s announcement of bigger defense spending is a signal that the UK will support a war in Ukraine indefinitely hoping that other EU countries will follow the theme. The problem of course is that this sets the EU off on a collision course with Trump, which many would argue threatens to be the start of an unprecedented rift, only corrected by him being replaced by a democrat President. Europe has never been so isolated from the U.S., as of now with its blinded dogma over Ukraine and a war it cannot stop fighting and losing. The more a rich man spends on a fake painting, the less inclined he is to accept its lack of authenticity. This is where Europe is now, with Starmer leading the pack of mad wolves talking about sending British troops there. Insane.

Of course, Trump and Putin will put an end to these wet dreams – would British soldiers even agree to go there? – by simply creating a peace plan which the rest of Europe will have to respect. To do this, priorities have to be drawn up. Trump gets his payback on minerals. Putin concedes this small request. Next, do we work with Zelensky or bypass him? Will Russian sanctions be part of a bigger deal? Almost certainly as it is no coincidence that Trump has already indicated in mainstream media that at some point these will be tackled head on. The delay is Trump working out what benefits he can extract from Putin if he is to lift sanctions. The important thing is that for the first time in contemporary history U.S. is not the belligerent buffoon starting wars around the world to embolden its hegemony and show the world what it can do with just mere military might. It is a peace broker, ending wars. And with the help of Russia.

Where does Europe stand in all this? Like children who have been left at a kiddies birthday party with no cake. Petulant, juvenile and completely deluded about who they are and what their capabilities are. Europe bays for more blood and even greater economic decline, while their own people suffer more and more. The most insincere aspect of Starmer’s speech in the parliament is when he talks about poor people suffering for the Ukraine war. His own government has gone from denying old people a heating subsidy to now his own police force threatening them with jail time if they don’t stop their mean tweets about Labour officials. Is it perhaps that Zelensky is so admired for being a dictator in Europe who has achieved so much more than his western counterparts, why he is so revered?

Read more …

The spectre of Elon Musk.

A Spectre Is Haunting Germany (Beppler-Spahl)

Just weeks before Germany’s general election, a spectre is haunting the country’s political class —the spectre of Elon Musk. Amid the allegeded threat of foreign interference in the election, the hand-wringing over how to stop the troublesome billionaire boss of X/Twitter—who has publicly backed the far-right populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD)—has reached worrying heights. This was evident when Thierry Breton, the former European Union commissioner for digital affairs, peddled the idea that the elections might have to be annulled if Germans voted the wrong way. Breton was discussing the possibility of an election win for the AfD in an interview with French broadcaster BFMTV/RMC. Referring to Musk, he said: “Let’s keep calm and enforce our laws in Europe when they are at risk of being circumvented […]. We did it in Romania, and we will obviously do it if necessary in Germany.”

He was, of course, alluding to the shocking annulment of Romania’s presidential election in December after an outsider—a Putin-supporting anti-vaccine populist—had surprisingly won the first round. The EU elites tried to blame the result on foreign ‘disinformation’ spread via social media. No German politician has yet gone as far as Breton. But it would be a big mistake to dismiss the former EU bureaucrat’s statement as a mere slip of the tongue–even if he has, in the meantime, retracted. (After Musk labelled him “a tyrant of Europe”, Breton claimed that he had been misquoted, that it “was another fake news” or a translation mistake, tweeting: “The EU has NO mechanism to nullify any election anywhere in the EU.”)

Yet other influential figures, such as Germany’s president Frank Walter Steinmeier (SPD), have also issued similar warnings. When Steinmeier dissolved the Bundestag (German Parliament) in December, and announced snap elections, he said: “Outside influence is a danger to democracy. Be it covert … or open and blatant, as is currently being practised particularly intensively on Platform X.” Notably, to date, the president has not distanced himself from Breton’s threat to erase the election results. There is no doubt that Musk has been meddlesome. He has also emboldened the AfD leadership. In late December, he wrote an opinion piece for Die Welt claiming that “only the AfD could save Germany” from decline. Following Steinmeier’s warnings in December, he took to X, disparaging the president as an “anti-democratic tyrant”.

Then, on January 9th, Musk livestreamed approximately 70 minutes of conversation with Alice Weidel, the AfD’s candidate for chancellor. During the talk, he reiterated his endorsement for her party. Though not everyone in the AfD was happy with Weidel’s performance—she was long-winded, and often very crass—they naturally appreciated Musk’s backing. At the AfD’s party conference, held last weekend, Weidel’s references to Musk received enthusiastic applause. However, attributing the AfD’s success to Musk, rather than to the failures of Germany’s established politicians, is blatant nonsense. The party’s polling numbers have held steady at around 20% for weeks, and recent surveys indicate that Musk’s interventions have had negligible impact, at best. This narrative reflects a persistent and problematic anti-populist assumption: that voters are passive objects, easily swayed by ‘demagogues’ rather than acting on their own political judgment.

Back in January last year—long before Musk was getting up to mischief online—Frank Walter Steinmeier called for a large alliance against the AfD and said: “We will not allow this country to be destroyed by extremist pied pipers.” What he meant was that AfD supporters were following tricksters and shady characters, as the rats and the children of Hamelin followed the pied piper to their doom in the old German folktale. The insult to German voters in the analogy was obviously lost on the president. The establishment’s fear of Musk is, in truth, its fear of the electorate. The threat to cancel the election was just one of many that have been made in recent days. Following Musk’s conversation with Weidel, EU vice president Henna Virkkunen announced an investigation into whether the conversation violated the Digital Services Act. Germany’s Bundestag has also launched an investigation into whether it was an illegal “party donation.”

The idea that the speech had given the party an illegal monetary advantage (“geldwerter Vorteil“) has also been peddled by Robert Habeck, Germany’s hapless economics minister and the Green Party’s candidate for chancellor. If the allegation of a financial advantage is proven, “this would have considerable consequences” for the AfD, said Michael Brenner, a constitutional lawyer, adding that the party could face “a very substantial sum” in fines. Claiming that a single interview may have given the AfD an unfair advantage in the run-up to the federal elections is more than a little disingenuous. While mainstream parties like the SPD, CDU, and Greens regularly receive extensive media coverage through numerous interviews and talk shows, the AfD has frequently been excluded from such platforms.

Read more …

“The EU has pledged to phase out Russian energy by 2027. Germany’s Economy Ministry insists that independence from Russian gas remains a priority for the country.”

German Factories Counting On Return of Russian Gas – Bloomberg (RT)

Key German industrial leaders have expressed their desire to see Russian gas return to Europe once a resolution to the Ukraine conflict is found, Bloomberg has reported. Chemical and manufacturing sector representatives argue that affordable energy is crucial for Germany’s economy to recover, the agency wrote on Friday. European gas prices surged after the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022. Pipeline gas imports from Russia mostly ceased due to sanctions and the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in 2022. Nevertheless, EU nations have still been buying record volumes of Russian LNG, the cost of which has nearly quadrupled in three years, according to Eurostat. Christian Gunther, managing director of the Leuna chemical park, emphasized that bringing back Russian gas would be a logical step if peace is achieved.

“We must ensure the damage caused by this conflict is repaired,” he told Bloomberg, adding that resuming deliveries “would be the logical consequence.” In 2021, Russian pipeline gas accounted for 32% of the total demand of the EU and UK, while Germany relied on Russia for 55% of its consumption, according to the European Council and Statista. Since cutting ties with Russian energy, the EU has turned to expensive LNG imports, primarily from the US. The shift has driven natural gas prices on the continent to their highest levels in two years, prompting discussions in Brussels about price caps. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has warned that soaring energy costs could cripple the EU economy.

The EU’s latest sanctions package, introduced on Monday, tightens restrictions on Russian energy but stops short of banning LNG imports. Gunther earlier criticized Germany’s energy policy, pointing out the inconsistency of banning Russian pipeline gas while still importing LNG. Bloomberg reported that Sven Schulze, the economy minister of German’s Saxony-Anhalt state, believes permanently excluding Russian gas “would be a mistake.” US President Donald Trump has been urging Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky to negotiate a peace deal with Russia, warning that failure to do so could result in the loss of American support.

On Friday, during a heated meeting at the Oval Office, Trump reportedly told Zelensky to leave the White House and return when he was ready to pursue peace. Ukraine refused to extend its gas transit contract with Russia’s Gazprom beyond 2024, further reducing EU access to Russian pipeline gas. The only remaining supply flows through the TurkStream pipeline via Türkiye and Greece. “We need peace to reopen pipelines, ensure supply security, and lower prices,” said Manuela Grieger, former chair of the workers union InfraLeuna, told Bloomberg. The EU has pledged to phase out Russian energy by 2027. Germany’s Economy Ministry insists that independence from Russian gas remains a priority for the country.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Seinfeld

 

 

USAID

 

 

Elon Epstein

 

 

Elon Soros

 

 

Cockatoo
https://twitter.com/i/status/1895858333938245676

 

 

Butterfly

 

 

Dinosaur

 

 

Galagos

 

 

Kid

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.